Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

This is indeed the last departmental questions of this Parliament and, Mr Speaker, it has been good to see you in your place at all of them. I have enjoyed my exchanges with the Secretary of State and note that during his time no fewer than nine Conservative minders have been sent to ensure, as his former deputy, the Defence Secretary, has intimated, that he does not slip his electronic tag. In all seriousness, despite all the efforts to promote certainty for business, does he agree that the biggest uncertainty facing business in this country is his Tory Prime Minister’s decision to flirt with EU exit and that the biggest mistake for his party would be to go along with it?

[Vince Cable]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courteous question on the last day of this Parliament and, for once, I agree with him. It would indeed be disastrous if we were to leave the European Union. There would be a prolonged hiatus before the referendum was held and many options could follow it, all of which would be very damaging for employment in this country. I and my party will certainly not go along with that.

[Mr Umunna]

I know that the Secretary of State does not think that his party’s former president and current foreign affairs chief, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), has much credibility, but I think that that hon. Gentleman was right to say that an in/out referendum at the arbitrary date of 2017 would

“damage the national interest, compromise our negotiating position and be bad for the economy and jobs”.

Both the hon. Gentleman and the Business Secretary fear that their leader will once again sell out his principles, this time on the EU, and they are worried about our future membership. There are many other reasons to do so, but is not the truth that the best and only way to clear up this uncertainty for business and the country is to vote Labour in 42 days?

[Vince Cable]

I have a longer memory than the hon. Gentleman; I first became involved in debates on the European Union in the mid-1970s, when I was campaigning in favour and the Labour party was against it. I am glad that it has finally seen the light, but my party has been consistent throughout.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 12th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Following their “Maoist and chaotic” abolition of regional development agencies—the Business Secretary’s words not mine—the Government’s flagship regional growth policy this Parliament has been the regional growth fund, which was mentioned earlier. This might be our last Business, Innovations and Skills questions this Parliament, so can the Secretary of State tell me what percentage of those RGF moneys, announced to great fanfare, have actually made it to, and been drawn down by, the businesses concerned?

[Vince Cable]

I am going off later today to talk about the regional growth fund and its latest successes. Most companies that have received RGF awards are highly appreciative of them. The awards have been highly successful in attracting private investment, which might not otherwise have occurred, and a substantial amount of employment. Of course a significant percentage does not go through immediately because of due diligence. Many of the awards are not completed because the projects proceed anyway or are withdrawn, and that is a consequence of the very careful and prudential way in which we manage money under the regional growth fund.

[Mr Umunna]

The fact is that hundreds of millions of pounds of RGF moneys are gathering dust and are nowhere to be seen by many of the businesses that they promised to help. The local enterprise partnerships that were put in place to do the job of the RDAs were left without appropriate budgets or powers, and the local enterprise zones, which we were told would create 54,000 jobs, have so far created less than a quarter of that sum. There has been a lot of grand talk from these Ministers on their plans to rebalance the economy, but as this Parliament comes to an end—never mind the chaos that the Secretary of State talked about—are not the words that best sum up delivery of schemes to boost regional growth, “utter incompetence”?

[Vince Cable]

If the shadow Secretary of State is so critical of the regional growth fund, is he proposing to abolish it? I suspect not. The reason why some money is not spent is that tests of due diligence have not been satisfied. I am sure that he will acknowledge the fact that, under the regional growth fund, public money is spent a lot more efficiently and effectively in drawing in private investment than ever happened under the regional development agencies, which were wasteful and ineffective.

Apprenticeships

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

It is certainly possible, as I think we shall see when we get the 2014-15 figures. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should be investing more in apprenticeships, not less. That is certainly my clear objective. He might not have noticed, but the autumn statement included a commitment to £40 million extra for higher and advanced apprenticeships over the next two financial years, so we have every reason to be optimistic about achieving continued growth.

The figures I have cited, which I do not think are disputed, actually understate the improvement achieved, and for precisely the reason that the shadow Secretary of State emphasised: the necessary shift to longer apprenticeships and higher level apprenticeships. When we came into government, the share of level 1 was above 40% for that age group, and it is now only 10%. We decided in 2012 not to include level 1 within the definition of an apprenticeship. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) pointed out, that was entry level. We now call those traineeships, so there is progression. It is valuable to have level 1, but we no longer describe it as an apprenticeship. If we take out the very short courses, in particular, which tended to dominate in the earlier period, we see that the number of people in the 19-to-24 age group has actually doubled, because of the preponderance of very short courses in the apprenticeship programmes we inherited.

Let us look at the higher level apprenticeships. For level 3 the number of starts has doubled. For higher—level 4, foundation degree and above—we have seen a tenfold increase since we came into government, from 1,700, which was negligible, to 18,000. There is an important point to make about levels. I think that the hon. Member for Streatham dismissed too easily the value of level 2 apprenticeships.

[Mr Umunna]

indicated dissent.

[Vince Cable]

Well, he seemed to imply that they were not quite apprenticeships. Actually, there is a lot of statistical evidence that people who do a level 2 apprenticeship and no more have significantly higher earnings than those who do not—about 11% or 12% over a three to five-year period. There are many important trades, such as bricklaying, in which a level 2 qualification offers valuable progression into a badly needed occupation. The hon. Gentleman is right that we should be moving up the level chain, which we are doing, but I do not want him or anybody else to devalue level 2 qualifications or to seek to eliminate them.

[Mr Umunna]

I agree with what the Secretary of State is saying. I am seeking not to devalue level 2 qualifications but to bring us up to—[Interruption.] Well, Mr Graham says that we want—[Interruption.]

[Mr Umunna]

What we are proposing is to bring us up to the same benchmarks as our competitors, who are more productive than we are.

[Vince Cable]

I hope that is a clarification that level 2 will not be removed from the hon. Gentleman’s definition of an apprenticeship, should he find himself in government. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister is not right that this is some kind of ploy to reduce the numbers and save money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

That is very helpful. The hon. Gentleman clearly speaks from experience and knowledge, and we respect that.

The figures are very clear: we have seen a big increase in volume and a big increase in quality. That did not happen by accident. It is important to talk through the constraints on the public finances that I inherited, and on which the hon. Member for Streatham elaborated with regard to the problems that will face the next Government. When I came into office, I was told that the previous Government had planned to cut the Department’s budget by 25% had they returned to office. That was clear and explicit. Indeed, we have had to confront that in office. Let us be clear that it would have been no different had he been doing my job.

The Department’s budget is dominated by two items: higher education, including teaching and student support, and adult skills. There are other, smaller items such as industrial support and science. We were therefore faced, in office, with some very painful and difficult decisions. The advice I got from the Opposition, in a particularly shrill and angry way, was that we must give priority to university undergraduates—future graduates. We did the calculations and found that had we followed the advice from the Opposition, and had we introduced the policy that I think—it is not totally clear—they are now considering introducing on tuition fees, we would have had to cut the adult skills budget by about 40%. Within that, we would have had to cut apprenticeships by even more, because, being of higher quality, they are more expensive than other forms of training. Apprenticeships, which the hon. Gentleman described as growing steadily throughout the time of the Labour Government, as they did, would have been emasculated as a result of the public spending cuts that I think his party would have made had it been in government, and that I was being advised to make.

I then made a decision, which I think was one of my better ones, to listen to the advice, to reject it, and to do the exact opposite. We took a serious political hit on higher education, but we did the right thing in ensuring that universities were properly funded and that we got a fair repayment system. We also made the decision to invest more, not less, in apprenticeships. That is how we have got to where we are, with not only the volume but the quality. That is because we followed up getting the volume by taking short apprenticeships of below one year out of the system; by significantly supporting advanced and higher level apprenticeships; and, perhaps most importantly—the hon. Gentleman did not mention this at all—by introducing employer ownership through giving business a greater say in how these funds are allocated. In all those ways, we have improved quality.

Let me deal with some of the other critical comments in the hon. Gentleman’s speech and motion. First, he quoted the figure, as he did when he was on television with me the other day, regarding what he calls the lack of formal training—[Interruption.] Indeed, there was a survey that suggested that some apprentices—

[Mr Umunna]

It was your survey.

[Vince Cable]

There were a substantial number of surveys; I am quoting the one that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted.

[Mr Umunna]

It was your survey.

[Vince Cable]

We have published a survey in which 24% of apprentices said that they had not received formal training. The hon. Gentleman has built his criticism around that.

[Mr Umunna]

It was your survey.

[Vince Cable]

I am not disowning the report; it clearly exists. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Opposition could be a little less silly and just try to follow the argument. The key is in the word “formal”. Many people do good apprenticeships in business that involve informal work in the workplace, and many people define good training in that way. The survey that we conducted, which the hon. Gentleman is having a little giggle about, tells us very clearly that 90% of those trainees are satisfied with their apprenticeships, while 72% are very satisfied. Ninety-seven per cent. said that they had been trained—sometimes informally, sometimes formally—and 90% got a job. Perhaps most crucially, there is a very high earnings premium. I have quoted the figure for level 2, and for level 3 it is significantly higher—about 16% three to five years after graduation. The proof of the pudding in is in the eating: these apprenticeships do provide satisfaction, jobs and higher salaries for the people who do them.

Let me address the minimum wage. The survey shows that 15% of people are not being paid the minimum wage. That figure is clearly too high, and unacceptable. The motion says that it is “one in five”. I am not sure who did the maths on this, but one in five is not 15%. Perhaps we need compulsory maths for Opposition Front Benchers as well as apprentices. The key point is that 15% is way down on the 30% figure that we inherited. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he has been part of these debates during the past year, we have significantly improved enforcement measures. We have increased penalties from £5,000 per firm to £20,000 per person, we have introduced naming and shaming, and we have increased the enforcement budget by 30%. We do take the minimum wage seriously. We believe that it must be enforced and that it should apply to apprentices as it should to anyone else.

The hon. Gentleman is right that procurement is a lever for the public sector to employ. We already have many examples of good practice in public sector procurement. Crossrail is a company that has really committed itself to high levels of apprenticeships. There are a couple of practical problems, as I hope he recognises; I think he hinted at one of them. First, for small and medium-sized enterprises and social enterprises, where we are trying to increase the share of public procurement, there is a conflict of objectives. Do we regard getting SMEs into procurement as more important than increasing their number of apprenticeships? There is no clear answer to that. Secondly, companies that are required to introduce apprenticeships would simply add that to the cost and it would be passed on to the public sector, so instead of a direct subsidy through our 50:50 payment system we would be providing indirect subsidies. These are not crippling objections. We need to reflect on how we can better use public procurement, but crude legislation and compulsion is probably not the best way. I accept that public procurement is a good vehicle, and we have to work on this.

Business, Innovation and Skills

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Friday 16th January 2015 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), does the Secretary of State agree that to hear that your job has been put at risk of redundancy not from your employer, but while watching the television news with your family on Christmas day—as was the case with the City Link workers—is an utterly appalling way to be treated?

[Vince Cable]

I certainly agree that for the 2,300 workers involved it was a very sad and dispiriting event. The company can answer for its behaviour, but the fact is that it was no longer viable and was put into administration.

[Official Report, 8 January 2015, Vol. 590, c. 384.]

Letter of correction from Vince Cable:

An error has been identified in my answer to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) during Questions to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.



The correct response should have been:

[Vince Cable]

I certainly agree that for the 2,586 workers involved it was a very sad and dispiriting event. The company can answer for its behaviour, but the fact is that it was no longer viable and was put into administration.

Topical Questions

[Mr Umunna]

With so many unanswered questions for employees and contractors of City Link, the entire affair stinks. Why, for example, if the firm was technically insolvent on 22 December, as has been reported, was it planning to trade until 26 December? Is it true that contractors were told that rumours of it going into administration were false? Why was a new subsidiary set up on 9 December?

The administrators will do their work and no doubt make a D1 filing with the Department. Given the numbers involved and the public interest in the administration, will the Secretary of State commit to conducting a full and proper inquiry into the matter, as he did with Comet? Those who have lost their jobs and contractors who are owed money deserve nothing less.

[Vince Cable]

The difference with the Comet case is the allegation of serious misconduct by directors, and that may or may not be the case with City Link. In six weeks, the administrator will make a report to our Insolvency Service and, depending on what that says, we may want to initiate an investigation, but let us wait and see the findings of that.

[Official Report, 8 January 2015, Vol. 590, c. 385.]

Letter of correction from Vince Cable:

An error has been identified in my answer to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) during Questions to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.



The correct response should have been:

Steel Industry

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I had already begun to deal with the cost issue. Let me explain how we are trying to offset it. Among our competitors, the French have a nuclear power industry, and the marginal cost of nuclear power is extremely low. The Germans use a lot of thermal power, but, under European rules, they have been able to grandfather the support that they have given to their industry. We have not overlooked the problem; there are very specific reasons for it.

I have dealt with the problems. Let me now deal with the major areas of opportunity, as I have rightly been asked to do. What is beginning to emerge is that successful British producers—notably Tata—are finding markets in two particular areas. One is high-quality production—alloy steels, light vehicles, aerospace—using sophisticated steels. That is where the market is beginning to consolidate and where companies are making significant margins to stay in business. The second area—again, I am very surprised the Opposition spokesman did not mention it—is exports. Within the last three to four years, exports have been growing rapidly. Tata Steel has won contracts in Singapore. We are working with it to win business in Qatar and Iraq on pipelines and other things. The future increasingly lies in export. The SSI plant, which is the big success for Redcar, has been based entirely on export production. Rather than focusing just on the problems created by import competition, let us think about this as a global industry in which good British producers have significant markets.

Those are the two areas of specialisation where British steel producers are doing well, so let me now turn to the areas of policy where the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) is asking us to do more: energy costs; the industrial strategy; and imports and certification.

On energy costs, I completely agree with Members on both sides of the House who argue that it is completely counter-productive to drive away energy-intensive British producers who simply pollute somewhere else. Carbon leakage is not sensible policy, so we should stop it.

We fully recognise that where British producers enjoy a cost disadvantage because of high energy costs they should be compensated, and we have agreed to compensate to the scale of £3 billion, which in an environment of fiscal pressure is by no means insignificant. In respect of one area of extra cost—the EU emissions trading scheme—compensation has already been paid; the cheques have gone out. In respect of the carbon price floor and the renewables obligations, we are in the process of trying to secure EU agreement on state aid. We have been waiting 18 months. If Opposition Front Benchers were familiar with what is happening in the European Commission, they would know that there is a major bottleneck in getting state aid clearance, not just for the UK but across the EU. It is important to reflect a little on that, because Opposition Members proclaim they believe in the EU—a belief which I happen to share—but the EU has as part of its operation something we support: strict state aid disciplines. When we are dealing with very complex problems, such as the approval for Hinkley or the approval we have recently obtained for the British business bank, those strict state aid disciplines take a great deal of time. We would be happy to bring forward compensation, subject to financial priorities, if state aid clearance could be obtained, but we are still waiting for it.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State saying that the only reason why the Government—I take it he is speaking for the Government—will not bring forward the compensation package due to kick in in April 2016 is state aid approval?

[Vince Cable]

Yes, that is the reason. There is financial provision in a later financial year. We would clearly have to argue with the Treasury for bringing that forward, and there would be an argument, which the hon. Gentleman would have were he in government, for funding that as against other priorities. That argument has to be had, but the current constraint is state aid approval, and it is a very real one.

[Mr Umunna]

If the Treasury, the European Commission and state aid approval are the issues, why has the Secretary of State not started having a discussion with the Treasury on that point, or has he done so already?

[Vince Cable]

Yes, we have that discussion on a frequent basis both at European level and internally within the Government. We are well aware of the sense of urgency in the industry and the pressure it faces from high energy costs, and we are anxious that it should be compensated as quickly as possible.

When I came into this job, we did not have an industrial strategy. We now have one. We had, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool correctly said, a strategy built around 11 sectors. We have added to that chemicals, electronics and metals. The metals strategy paper will be available later this year and will be the basis on which we can work in future with the industry.

The hon. Gentleman asked for several specific respects in which an industrial strategy could help. Let me itemise them. On R and D innovation, he is right: a forward-looking industry needs Government to support innovation. The fact that the advanced manufacturing catapult is in Sheffield is highly relevant to some of the specialist producers that make major use of it. In addition, we have provided more than £8 million for a steel industry R and D centre at the university of Warwick, which will do a lot of the innovative work in this field, so we recognise the importance of R and D.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned training. Quite apart from the across-the-board work we do on apprenticeships, we have a programme to fund 100 postgraduate researchers and 250 apprenticeships for Tata, specifically dedicated to the future manpower requirements of the steel industry.

The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned procurement issues. One of the first problems we had to confront was procurement in the rail industry, where contracts were defined in such a way that they did not help British suppliers. We have rectified that problem. We have to operate within the laws of the European Union on procurement, but under the industrial strategy we now actively seek strategically to develop British suppliers. This is now happening in respect of, for example, energy supply chains and railways—all the recent big railway contracts are going to companies based in the UK. The point is fully understood that we have to develop British supply chains, albeit within the rules of international law that we subscribe to.

[Mr Umunna]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. Does he not accept that simply waving the flag of EU state aid approval problems in respect of the use of procurement is a red herring? So long as the benefit for growth and jobs in this country is not the sole criterion used for making procurement decisions, it can be taken into account when making such decisions. It seems to me that that is not really happening in government.

[Vince Cable]

It is happening, it is taken into account, and end-user industrial strategies such as those for the railways sector and the energy supply chain industries—nuclear, oil and gas, offshore wind—are operating entirely on that basis. Contracts that would otherwise have gone overseas are now going to UK producers. Why else are wind turbines being fabricated on Humberside, which we hope will provide a linkage back into the steel industry in Scunthorpe in due course?

The hon. Member for Hartlepool asked about supply chain development. I do not know whether he is aware of the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative, which is providing support for specific supply chains. A substantial award was given to the Proving Factory, based in Sheffield, which was designed specifically to develop the supply chain within the steel industry. The things that the hon. Gentleman is calling for are happening, and we fully understand the need for them.

I turn to imports and the quality issues relating to China. I think the hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood the mechanisms involved. The testing of steel—this is a particular issue, as he correctly pointed out, in respect of rebar and Celsa—is carried out by the UK Certification Authority for Reinforcing Steel, which is an industry body not a Government body. It does the testing and tracing. As he correctly pointed out, a year ago we initiated an inquiry into whether the system had integrity and was effective. We asked the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, which is part of the BIS family of institutions, to investigate whether the certification process was working and whether the correct testing procedures were being followed. It said that, having checked, there was no particular fault within the Chinese products. We have had further strong representations from Celsa, among others, and further investigations are taking place as a result. I believe that a team from CARES is doing detailed testing in China at the moment. We want to make absolutely sure that the process is investigated. So far, no hard evidence has been found of a serious fault in the Chinese products. There may be such a fault, but we have to find the evidence and, so far, we have not done so.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool raised the topical issue of the future of Tata and Celsa. The position of Tata is straightforward: it has announced its intention to sell the long products division. As I have explained in the House before, I had a substantial discussion on this matter with Mr Mistry when I was last in India. Mr Klesch has expressed an interest in buying it, and my colleagues and officials and I have had discussions with him, although we have so far discussed ideas only at a very general level. When he has proposals, he can bring them to the Government and we can discuss them and negotiate. The whole process is at a much more general level at the moment than the hon. Gentleman hinted at in his speech.

I very much welcome the fact that Tata has engaged with the Community union to produce an analysis of the future of the industry. Perhaps that will give us a whole new set of options. It is a good initiative and we are eager to work with it. I believe strongly in the steel industry. I have been closely engaged with it since I became Secretary of State. I think it has an excellent future, but it will need continuing support from this and the next Government. As far as I am concerned, I will remain close to it and closely involved with it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 8th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), does the Secretary of State agree that to hear that your job has been put at risk of redundancy not from your employer, but while watching the television news with your family on Christmas day—as was the case with the City Link workers—is an utterly appalling way to be treated?

[Vince Cable]

I certainly agree that for the 2,300 workers involved it was a very sad and dispiriting event. The company can answer for its behaviour, but the fact is that it was no longer viable and was put into administration. [Official Report, 16 January 2015, Vol. 590, c. 9MC.]

[Mr Umunna]

With so many unanswered questions for employees and contractors of City Link, the entire affair stinks. Why, for example, if the firm was technically insolvent on 22 December, as has been reported, was it planning to trade until 26 December? Is it true that contractors were told that rumours of it going into administration were false? Why was a new subsidiary set up on 9 December?

The administrators will do their work and no doubt make a D1 filing with the Department. Given the numbers involved and the public interest in the administration, will the Secretary of State commit to conducting a full and proper inquiry into the matter, as he did with Comet? Those who have lost their jobs and contractors who are owed money deserve nothing less.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the active role he plays in supporting his local commercial community. As the Minister for Business and Enterprise, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), described a few moments ago, we are actively involved in supporting small business through the start-up loan scheme, through credit flows to the business bank and by creating a deregulatory and favourable tax environment.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

It is essential that we give our towns, cities and regions the tools to be the masters of their own economic destinies to drive jobs and growth. The Secretary of State has said that he established local enterprise partnerships to help achieve that, and the LEP network was set up to support them and take forward their shared programme. Will he update us on their progress?

[Vince Cable]

Enormous progress has been made by the local enterprise partnerships since they replaced the regional development agencies, which, by common consent, were remote and wasteful. The most significant recent development was the growth deals, which all the LEPs now have and which have been enhanced by the specific programmes that have been developed for Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and other centres.

[Mr Umunna]

I am sorry, but the Secretary of State simply does not appear to know what is happening on a supposedly key part of the Government’s programme. I have here a letter from the chair of the LEP network. He says that the network will close in two weeks and that the CEO has resigned because there is no support to do the job. He says that the network is

“seriously under resourced for such a critical role at such an important time”

and that it is

“now officially overwhelmed and preparing to throw in the towel.”

Four years ago, the Secretary of State said that the regional policy was Maoist and chaotic. Does this not demonstrate that very little has changed?

[Vince Cable]

It demonstrates nothing of the kind. The LEP network is working exceedingly well. LEPs are voluntary organisations; some are outstanding and innovative and others struggle, as this one has done. It is much better that we have a regional network that is business-led and is related to the geography of the area, which was manifestly not the case with the regional development agencies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 11th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

Indeed, we will. I have had good discussions with Northern Ireland colleagues about the very successful advanced manufacturing sector. Bombardier has an expanding presence in Belfast, as the hon. Gentleman will know, and there are other parts of the aerospace supply chain that we are keen to develop in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Before I ask my question, I am sure that on the anniversary of 9/11 the whole House will want to remember those who lost their lives, including British citizens, on that terrible day 13 years ago. Our thoughts, best wishes and prayers go out to their families and friends.

Scotland’s vibrant financial services sector is important to the UK’s competitiveness, and more particularly to Scotland’s competitiveness in the global marketplace. RBS has been mentioned, and no doubt the Secretary of State will also have heard Lloyds bank and Clydesdale bank say that they will relocate their headquarters to London in the event of separation. The vote next week is, of course, for the Scottish people, but does that not illustrate the lorry load of uncertainty for jobs, competitiveness and growth in Scotland that will come with the break-up of one of the most successful unions the world has ever seen?

[Vince Cable]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman and he makes the point well. In addition to the lists of institutions he has just given, Standard Life in the insurance sector has made it clear that it could not remain in Scotland were it to be an independent country. That relates to the need for large financial institutions to have a regulator, and in some cases a lender of last resort. A country the size of an independent Scotland would not be able to support those institutions. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in his approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

My Department published some detailed analysis, which I think enjoyed wide consensus. It was objective in relation to the potentially damaging effects not just on business and the British single market, but on research in the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, Scottish university institutions have attracted a disproportionate share of finance for the very good reason that they do excellent research, but that arrangement clearly could not be guaranteed in an independent Scotland.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Sir David Barnes, former chief executive officer of AstraZeneca, told us that while companies should manage their tax affairs efficiently, it should not have been the driving force for Pfizer’s proposed takeover of AstraZeneca because it was

“a narrow basis on which to build an enduring and constructive business partnership.”

Does the Business Secretary agree with that general principle in respect of the takeover of important British companies?

[Vince Cable]

Yes, I do agree with that, and I made that very clear at the time. I think that the response of the Government, as well as of the shareholders of AstraZeneca, was a factor in persuading Pfizer not to pursue that bid.

[Mr Umunna]

The tax avoidance mechanism—tax inversion—that Pfizer sought to use through that takeover has been one of the main driving forces behind this year’s surge in cross-border deals. However, this week US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said the Obama Administration would crack down on inversions pending further action by Congress. Does the Business Secretary share my concern that if we see takeovers of British firms being primarily driven by the desire to avoid US tax, there is a real risk of a large flight of capital back to the US when the threatened crackdown comes, leaving important UK companies high and dry?

[Vince Cable]

Again, I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s basic proposition. As it happens, much of the alarm that was raised some months ago about large American companies taking over British companies or British-based companies on the back of those tax provisions have proved wholly unfounded. He is quite right that takeovers, although they are generally beneficial to the UK economy, should not be driven by artificial short-term tax considerations.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

No, I have not been to see the Queen yet.

I will be as quick as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker.

It is good to see the Secretary of State back in his place after the reshuffle, leading this debate. I note that he has acquired some new Conservative minders. He no longer has three, but five. [Interruption.] Somebody behind him says that he needs them.

[Vince Cable]

I’ve got seven.

[Mr Umunna]

For the record, the Business Secretary says that he has seven minders. I am sure that he will not let them get him down.

It is also good to see the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) back in her place. I know that her shadow, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), has missed their exchanges and looks forward to the lengthy exchanges that they will have in Committee.

The Bill is a long one and comes in 11 parts. The House will be glad to know that I will not go through all 11 of them, but I will deal with the key parts in turn as quickly as possible to allow the maximum time for other Members to get in. First, I will address the purported purpose of the Bill, which was set out by the Secretary of State.

Our wealth creators—our entrepreneurs and particularly our small businesses—are fundamental to growth in this country and create almost two thirds of private sector jobs. They are crucial to the success of large firms and vice versa—the relationship between the two is symbiotic. We recognised that in government and were determined to build an environment in which business could flourish. I am proud to say that by the time we left office, the World Bank ranked the UK the best country in Europe for the ease of doing business and the fourth best in the world, ahead of the US. I am glad to see that where we led, this Government seek to follow with this Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill.

We are told that the Bill is designed to reduce the barriers that hamper the ability of small businesses to innovate, grow and compete, and that it seeks to pave the way for the Government to be more supportive of small business. After four years of this Government, it is about time too. We support the purported general purposes and principles of the Bill—how could one not?—but the detail is everything and we will scrutinise it.

However, the Bill and the Government’s policy more broadly do not resolve the underlying structural issues, which I have discussed on many occasions with the Secretary of State, that hold businesses and employment back in our economy. He and I agree that we need a different model of capitalism—one that is more inclusive, productive, responsible and long-term in outlook. The fact is that our economy is still grossly unbalanced by sector and region; short-termism is still endemic in business and government; we still have a dysfunctional finance system; and we have a stubborn and increasing trade deficit. Meanwhile, the use of food banks has soared and many people still struggle. In some wards of my constituency, one in three children is living in poverty.

The recovery is not what we would want it to be, and it looks a lot like the model of growth that we need to get away from. It is a business-as-usual recovery, based on a rising housing market and consumer spending; it is not the export and business investment-led recovery we were promised. Therefore, now is the time to intensify the pace of reform of the economy to build a better-balanced, sustainable economy. It should also be said that the Bill is not just about building an economy with flourishing businesses. We must remember that, if we want to be pro-business, we cannot continually beat up on the rights of the people who work in businesses. I will return to that later.

The first key element is access to finance. Any scheme that helps small businesses to access finance is welcome, but the Government’s record in getting the banks to lend to small businesses is lamentable. Flagship scheme after flagship scheme, from Project Merlin to funding for lending, has failed to deliver. Net lending to businesses is down by £14.2 billion in the past 12 months. In fact, net lending to businesses by banks participating in the funding for lending scheme fell by £2.7 billion in the first quarter of this year.

If part 1 of the Bill does anything to help affairs, for example by making it easier for businesses to seek loans from challenger banks, and lenders other than high street banks and by opening up access to credit data, such measures will have the Opposition’s support. Equally, the measures to ensure that support is available for those who wish to export are welcome, particularly given our need to get more of our small businesses exporting—it looks like the Government are nowhere near reaching the target of getting 100,000 more companies exporting by 2020.

However, we know that increasing late payment, to which the Secretary of State referred, is becoming a more significant challenge than access to finance. In a recent Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales survey, almost twice as many businesses cited late payment as a bigger challenge in managing their cash flow than access to finance. We must end the national scandal of small businesses being effectively forced to bankroll large customers that persist in refusing to pay them on time. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, 51% of the invoices of its members are persistently paid late by large companies. That is wholly unacceptable. The Forum of Private Business has cited the example of Marks & Spencer, which extended payment terms to some suppliers to 75 days, for no apparent defensible reason.

In 1998, the Labour Government responded to that growing problem by introducing the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. Towards the end of our time in government, we worked with the British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Credit Management and others to get FTSE 100 companies signed up to the then new prompt payment code, but we need to go further, because for all our hard work, we were not successful in fixing the problem, and this Government have also not been successful. At this juncture, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who is in the Chamber, on her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary inquiry on late payments, along with other members of the group. The two measures in part 1 of the Bill are good, but the problem is that, when there is late payment, it is still for the business to pursue and have a row with its customer for payment, potentially losing the customer in the process. We must square that circle. We will return to that provision in more detail in Committee.

I will not say much about the regulatory reform in part 2. Of course, the Opposition support the general principle that we need to be mindful of the quantity of regulation we impose on business, but equally important is ensuring that the quality of the regulation is up to scratch, and that it is written with the small guy in mind, so that they do not need to employ an army of accountants, lawyers and risk managers to tell them what they need to do to comply. We support the publication of a target for the removal of regulatory burdens in each Parliament, which is provided for in part 2. We also support the proposed statutory review provision for new regulations that affect businesses. However, unless the Secretary of State addresses the way in which the Department for Work and Pensions—I spoke to him about this the last time we were in the House—is massively increasing the burden on people in receipt of benefit who wish to start a business, the Government’s credibility will be sorely lacking.

We were told that part 3 aims to remove barriers and help small businesses to gain fair access to the £230 billion of Government procurement contracts through a more efficient process that is more small business friendly. We are broadly supportive of these measures. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) is not in her place. It is deeply disappointing, and she might recognise this as a former Treasury Minister, that one of the worst offenders in ensuring that small businesses get a look-in on Government contracts is the very Department she used to work in. Just 5% of the Treasury’s direct procurement spend is with small business. If this measure kicks the Treasury into touch, then good.

Before turning to part 4 and measures relating to pubs, I would like to pay tribute to the shadow small business Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), and the coalition of people, including Government Members—the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) is in his place—who have worked on this too. It has to be said that I can think of no better day for a pint in a pub beer garden, given the hot weather.

The Opposition have had to force three votes on this issue in the House since 2012, demanding a statutory pub code to put the relationship, between tied pub licensees in England and Wales and the large pub companies, on a fairer statutory footing. Every time we did this most, though not all, Government Members voted against, and in the meantime 28 pubs a week have closed. We are pleased that the Government have finally accepted the need to legislate for a statutory code. We will work with them to help to protect our community pubs, which are national institutions, but we are far from convinced that what they propose goes far enough. We are not convinced that the limited transparency envisaged by the Bill will deliver the Government’s own principle that no publican should be worse off than if they were free of tie. We will also seek to ensure that the Secretary of State gets the right to introduce the mandatory rent-only option for tied tenants in the near future, if these reforms do not deliver.

Part 7—I am trying to go as fast as possible—seeks to increase transparency on who owns and controls UK companies. I very much welcome the measures to create a public register of beneficial owners of companies. A prerequisite to maintaining a register of beneficial owners, of course, is knowing in the first place that companies exist. The Business Secretary and I have had exchanges on this. Never mind the new measures that are envisaged, it is very important that we ensure compliance with existing requirements, for example on disclosing overseas subsidiaries. The Secretary of State kindly wrote to me last year, outlining how 40% of the FTSE 350 had failed to disclose overseas subsidiaries in the first instance. Enforcement is therefore key to ensuring that data are accurate and up to date, and that sanctions of sufficient gravity can be applied to ensure that people comply in the first instance. We must do all we can to persuade others around the globe to comply and adopt public registers too, particularly UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Let us send a clear message: what our overseas territories and Crown dependencies do in this area affects the UK’s reputation as a whole, and we will not sit idly by while our reputation is damaged.

Part 9 seeks to strengthen the rules of disqualification for directors, and we have no problems with the measures suggested here. As I think the CBI has said, they will help to boost the UK’s internationally recognised company law regime and promote even higher standards of corporate governance.

That brings me—it is connected—to the measures the Secretary of State mentioned on streamlining insolvency law. Among the changes the Government intend to implement is a measure to abolish the requirement to hold physical creditor meetings in an insolvency situation. I have to say that R3, which represents insolvency practitioners, and a number of creditor representative groups have very serious concerns that this will reduce creditor engagement and undermine the insolvency regime.



Creditor meetings serve an important function, as I know from my professional experience. For example, the insolvency practitioner engaged may have limited knowledge of the company’s history at the outset, but in a creditor meeting they can get useful information about the company and its financial affairs that it might otherwise not have occurred to them to think about. We are therefore not convinced that the proposal to do away with creditor meetings is at all sensible, so in Committee we will carefully scrutinise these proposals and the others on insolvency.

Before I finish up by looking at the employment law reforms in part 11, I want to turn to the measures on public sector workers receiving large pay-outs if they go on to work in other parts of the public sector. Let us be clear what has prompted the inclusion of that measure in the Bill. The Prime Minister promised that there would be no top-down reorganisation of the NHS and then he broke that promise. When the Government embarked on that top-down reorganisation, we warned them about the huge amount of taxpayers’ money that would be wasted, but we were told that our claims were unfounded. What happened? More than 4,000 have been made redundant and then rehired in the NHS since 2010. As the shadow Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), has said, that has meant the Government handing out cheques like confetti to people who were rehired. Some £1.4 billion has been spent on redundancies in the NHS alone, at a time when NHS budgets are stretched. That is a complete disgrace. Pay-offs for managers and pay cuts for nurses—that is what we are seeing.

The Secretary of State will no doubt say, “This has got nothing to do with me, guv. It’s not my brief; it’s those terrible Tories sat behind me.” Well he can say what he likes, but everyone knows that he voted for all the changes in the Health and Social Care Act 2012—in fact, he was a sponsor of it—when it was going through Parliament, and now he is having to clear up the mess in this small business and enterprise Bill. What a total and complete shambles.

That brings me to the employment aspects of the Bill, covering employment tribunals, the national minimum wage and zero-hours contracts. If anything demonstrates that this Government have run their course and are running out of steam, it is the employment provisions in part 11. The Government have done the minimum in this part that they thought they could get away with or that they could reach agreement on. I will deal with the points of agreement first. There are measures in the Bill seeking to limit the number of postponements that parties can be granted in a case, with judges being given the power to make cost orders where late applications for postponements are made. Based on my experience of practising as an employment lawyer, I think those measures are sensible, as do others, such as the TUC, which points to the difficulties that witnesses face in getting time off work to attend hearings.

However, improving the process once people get to tribunal will be no more than an academic exercise for those claimants who frankly cannot afford to pay the tribunal fees instituted by this Government. What the Government have done with those fees is erect a barrier to justice for some of the lowest-paid people in the country. They have simply priced them out of the system. That is the reason for the 79% drop in employment tribunal claims that was referred to earlier. It is women and low-paid workers in particular who seem to be the principal losers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State think it is acceptable for a Government Department to increase reporting requirements twelvefold for businesses?

[Vince Cable]

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but as the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said a moment ago, we have taken considerable action drastically to reduce the regulatory burden on business.

[Mr Umunna]

I am talking about the disgraceful burden being heaped on the one in five self-employed people in this country who will be in receipt of universal credit. Those businesses are being required to report their income not once a year, but every single month. Their earnings are being computed on a completely different basis from the assessment carried out by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for tax purposes, and the minimum income they will be assumed to have is for 35 hours a week at the minimum wage. That is unjust and unworkable and it does not reflect how those businesses work. Why has this ministerial team sat back and allowed the red tape baron—the Work and Pensions Secretary—to erect this barrier to aspiration?

[Vince Cable]

I would have thought that most reasonable people would welcome the growth of self-employment and entrepreneurship that is happening under this Government. I think they would also probably welcome the fact that the benefits system demands maximum integrity.

Jobs and Work

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I will take more interventions later, if hon. Members will let me make a little progress. That intervention prompts me to remind the House where we are with the economy. We are the strongest growing of the major G7 countries. Major forecasts by the IMF and the OECD suggest that this year growth will be between 2.7% and 3.5%, which is quite exceptional in current circumstances, with the trend continuing in 2015.

What is more important is the fact that that has been achieved in a balanced way. In the last three quarters, manufacturing has been growing faster than the economy as a whole. Business investment, which was seriously depressed through the recession, is now experiencing double-digit growth on an annualised basis. I was taken aback when the hon. Member for Streatham started to tell me about the industrial strategy. I was in the House for the 13 years of the last Labour Government. Throughout that period, any suggestion that we have the kind of industrial strategy that we are now leading was regarded with utter ridicule by—

[Mr Umunna]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Vince Cable]

I will in a moment. The hon. Gentleman has reminded us of some genuinely useful things that were left by my predecessor, including the Automotive Council. Of course no money or long-term investment was attached. We are now doing work with the high-value manufacturing sector through the Catapult centres. There has been a billion-pound co-investment in new automotive propulsion systems. That did not exist. However, some things left by my predecessor were useful. They were small, but they did contribute to what is now a valued industrial strategy supported on both sides of industry. I am glad that the Opposition have bought into it, albeit rather belatedly.

[Mr Umunna]

I am sorry, but that is rather ridiculous coming from a BIS Secretary who in opposition argued for the abolition of his own Department. Now he is trying to pose as a great industrial activist.

[Vince Cable]

My Department is now very different. It now includes universities, science and many other things. In one period during the last Labour Government—the hon. Gentleman may remember it; I think that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) was the Minister who started the change—there were about 186 different systems of industrial support, the cumulative effect of which was largely negative because we had large-scale deindustrialisation. We are pursuing the strategy in a much more concerted way, in partnership with business and on a long-term basis. That is what we are achieving.

AstraZeneca (Pfizer Bid)

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I congratulate my colleague, who is representing Cambridge very effectively on this issue, as indeed is the Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley). I recognise my hon. Friend’s expertise and his pioneering work on cancer drugs in the life sciences industry. I will deal specifically with the Cambridge question because it has obviously been at the centre of the discussion.

It may be useful to read the relevant sentence from the open letter that Pfizer sent to the Prime Minister, bearing in mind that this is a proposal and has not been agreed with the Government—we have not accepted the terms of the letter. The issue of binding obligations remains to be addressed. The letter states:

“Pfizer commits to complete the construction of the currently planned AstraZeneca Cambridge campus, creating a substantial R&D innovation hub in Cambridge and the wider scientific community, which will include core research units, laboratory based scientific support lines and European clinical development and regulatory functions.”

My hon. Friend is concerned about decision making, not just research, and the letter continued:

“Pfizer will base key scientific leadership in the UK who will lead all European and certain global R&D functions based in Cambridge.”

We have had similar conversations with AstraZeneca to ensure that it is similarly committed.

On my hon. Friend’s wider concerns, he made a perfectly valid point about the United States tax regime. Of course, we have no certainty about how the US would respond, which is why I stressed in my introduction that we must view the issue from the point of view of industry strategy rather than tax. Having said that, the fact that Britain has a competitive and attractive tax environment is a positive good, and we should celebrate that.

My hon. Friend mentioned three anti-trust jurisdictions, but there are almost certainly others. This proposal involves two big, complex international companies and a variety of jurisdictions will have to assess it.

On the relative merits of the two companies, I do not propose to treat this as a beauty parade, but it is fair to say that there have been very substantial redundancies from both companies in recent years, of roughly the same order of magnitude. On the positive side, they are very considerable investors and collaborators.

On the NHS points, I have established from the Health Secretary that there are no urgent life-threatening issues in relation to drugs. On competition, there is potentially an issue for the new Competition and Markets Authority and the European competition authorities, and that is where plurality would need to be addressed.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Let us be clear: the issue is not whether this prospective takeover is a foreign one but whether the transaction will be good for jobs and growth in the UK; will protect Britain’s knowledge, research and skills base; and represents a long-term investment in the UK. With that in mind, may I ask the Secretary of State four questions?

First, Pfizer has said that it is committed to making a long-term investment in the UK through this purchase. Similar assurances were given to other companies acquired by Pfizer in the US and Sweden, yet subsequently research facilities were shut down and thousands of high-skilled jobs lost. Why should we believe that the same fate will not befall AstraZeneca?

Secondly, Pfizer says it is committed to investing in R and D, but John LaMattina, who served for over 30 years as Pfizer’s president of global R and D, is clear: this transaction will lead to “dramatic cuts” in R and D. Surely this supports the case for the immediate independent assessment of the deal that the Leader of the Opposition has called for.

Thirdly, the main rationale for this transaction appears to be tax. Sir David Barnes, former chief executive officer of AstraZeneca, wrote to us both—the Secretary of State and me—last night. He said that while companies should manage their tax affairs efficiently, the use of tax inversion proposed by Pfizer is a

“narrow basis on which to build an enduring and constructive business partnership.”

What guarantees has the Secretary of State received that if the tax position changes in the US, investment here will not be withdrawn?

Fourthly, the Secretary of State said that the Government have a neutral view. Why, then, on Friday, just hours after the AstraZeneca board rejected Pfizer’s advances for a third time, was he going round saying that Pfizer’s commitments were “welcome and encouraging”? Why was the Conservative party chairman talking of the deal being a

“great Anglo-American tie-up”?

The fact is that over the past week the Government have compromised the AstraZeneca board, leading the chairman to urge the Prime Minister to adopt a neutral position.

The bottom line is this: the assurances the Government have extracted from Pfizer are simply not worth the paper they are written on, are they? If I am wrong, why, less than three days after giving them, did Pfizer’s CEO say yesterday that following the completion of the AstraZeneca takeover, the company could be split into three parts, all of which could subsequently be flogged off?

[Vince Cable]

I have already dealt with some of the hon. Gentleman’s points, particularly in relation to the tax regime.

Specifically on neutrality, I made it very clear in any comments I made to the media that of course, as a result of conversations that we had with both companies, assurances given in writing were welcome. It would have been absurd to reject them; of course they were welcome. However, I also made it very clear that we needed to study the small print and that there was an issue about how these obligations were made binding. Of course, those issues now need very clearly to be addressed.

I am perfectly happy to take advice and lectures from anybody about how to handle this very difficult and sensitive issue, but the one example that we have in front of us of what to avoid is what happened in the Kraft-Cadbury merger. First, the then Government made no attempt at neutrality and said from the outset that there was going to be huge opposition to the takeover. Secondly, they failed to stop it, having said they were going to do so, and they sought no assurances of any kind, in writing or verbal; indeed, my predecessor has acknowledged that. We are trying to learn from their experiences.

We have taken up a position of neutrality. We acknowledge that there are very serious legal constraints, but I am keeping all options open on that front. We are seeking to locate this whole debate within our industrial future rather than in terms of tax advantage, and I made that very clear in my introduction.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I think I largely answered that question a few moments ago, but the point I would emphasise is that despite the disadvantage of costs, albeit with the compensation we are now proposing, we have had very substantial investment in our energy-intensive industries. The steel industry, in particular, has been an exemplary example of long-term investment by Tata.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

In export week, will the Secretary of State tell us what he is doing to garner support among Cabinet colleagues for our seventh-largest export industry, a sector that generates more than £10 billion of income for our country?

[Vince Cable]

My colleague the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) has given a comprehensive answer on how we are promoting exports across the board. The industrial strategy is, of course, maximising our export potential.

[Mr Umunna]

I am talking about higher education. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government’s net migration target has done immense damage to higher education, contributing to a 51% fall in postgraduates coming from India and a 49% fall in those coming from Pakistan. Jim O’Neil, on the Department for Education’s board, agrees, saying that the Government are sending out a message that they are “not serious” about exporting education. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) at No. 10 has argued, as we do, that legitimate students should be taken out of Government net migration targets, but is it not the truth that for all the talk from that Minister and the Business Secretary, both have let the sector down by failing to get their intransigent Home Secretary to see sense?

[Vince Cable]

The simple truth of the matter is that, as a result of discussions across the Cabinet and with the Minister for Universities and Science and myself, there is no cap on the number of overseas students. [Hon. Members: “There is.”] There is not. We want to maximise the number. We actively encourage them, and only this week there was a £1 billion contract signed with Saudi Arabia for higher education training in which we are a participant.

Royal Mail

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to make a statement on the price at which Royal Mail was privatised last year, in the light of the National Audit Office’s report, out today.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

The National Audit Office has today published its report on the Royal Mail sale of shares. The report confirms that we achieved our primary objective of securing a sale of shares, allowing Royal Mail to access the private capital it needs to invest and thrive. As a result the taxpayer now faces reduced risk of having to provide financial support to the universal postal service.

It was right that we took a cautious and measured approach to the sale. That approach was taken in the light of our primary objective, and reflects the considerable risks we faced due to industrial relations and challenging market conditions.

The price range for the shares was set following a comprehensive programme of engagement with over 500 potential investors and was benchmarked against valuations of comparable postal companies. I am clear that this was the correct approach to secure a successful transaction.

A more aggressive approach to pricing would have introduced significantly greater risk. The advice that we received in this respect was unambiguous. There was no confidence that a sufficient number of buyers would offer a significantly higher price. A failed transaction and the retention of Royal Mail in public ownership would have been a very poor outcome for the taxpayer, as the NAO report confirms.

Achieving taxpayer value is about securing both short-term and long-term benefits. In the short term, we have delivered a successful transaction, which raised £2 billion for the Exchequer, enabled over 690,000 members of the public to buy Royal Mail shares and put in place the largest employee share scheme of any privatisation in nearly 30 years. In the long term, we have reduced the ongoing risks to the taxpayer by putting Royal Mail in a position where it can operate commercially and finance its own funds if needed. In doing so, as the NAO confirms, we have achieved our key objectives.

The sale of shares in Royal Mail has delivered on our commitment to protect the universal postal service and safeguard vital services for the taxpayer.

[Mr Umunna]

Mr Speaker, you know it is April fool’s day when a report is published by the National Audit Office saying that

“the Department…could have achieved better value for the taxpayer”

but Ministers go out to the media, and come to this House, to declare their privatisation a success. They must think we are all fools. What planet are they living on?

There are no two ways about this: the report delivers a damning verdict on the Government’s botched privatisation, which has left the taxpayer disgracefully short-changed to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. Let us be clear: the issue was not whether they would be able to sell all the shares—one can usually flog off something for a knock-down price—but whether, in so doing, they secured best value for the taxpayer. They have sought to hide behind the advice they received from the bankers, who made millions out of the deal. Will the Secretary of State confirm that those advisers acted within “inflexible” constraints set by Ministers to achieve a sale as soon as possible in this Parliament? Had they waited for the markets to settle and for further years’ profits to be delivered, they could have achieved a better price. Secondly, is it not the case that having judged that Royal Mail’s profits were doomed to decline, far from making an objective judgment, they simply refused to entertain the notion that it could succeed in public hands, although the financial results for the last financial year showed a trebling of profits?

Finally, we were promised that the Secretary of State would secure a long-term and supportive shareholder base, but the opposite has turned out to be true. Will he confirm that the 17 supposed long-term investors he prioritised had sold almost half the shares allocated to them within weeks and that hedge funds now make up a large number of the shareholder list?

The Secretary of State dismissed claims that a cherished national institution was being sold off on the cheap as “froth”. The truth is that this has been a first-class disaster for the taxpayer and those he once referred to as “spivs and gamblers” are laughing all the way to the bank. The very least he can do today is apologise.

[Vince Cable]

The last thing I intend to do is apologise. What I do intend to do is refer to what the report actually said, as opposed to the spinning and froth that is being generated around it. Let me read again the report’s initial conclusion on value for money:

“By floating Royal Mail on the Stock Exchange the Department achieved its key objectives of introducing private capital and commercial disciplines. Given Royal Mail’s prospects and prudent initial capital structure it is now less likely that the taxpayer will have to provide public support for the universal postal service.”

That is what it actually said.

Let me address the criticisms, if that is what they were. The first was that the Department was cautious, but I would have thought that caution in this context had a lot to commend it. The reason the Department was cautious was the very real risk that the floatation could fail. The choice we faced was: had the floatation failed, it would have remained in public ownership and, despite the hon. Gentleman’s preference for keeping it in public ownership, the valuation placed on it continuing in public ownership was about £1 billion. That was not disputed by the National Audit Office. The alternative—the floatation which happened—resulted in a value for the taxpayer of £2 billion in cash and £1.5 billion in continued value of the retained sale. There was a choice between the £3.5 billion that resulted from the privatisation and the £1 billion had it failed, so it is absolutely right and sensible that we were cautious.

The hon. Gentleman made the point that there was a lack of flexibility in the initial public offering system. Indeed, the National Audit Office makes that point: there was a lack of flexibility. The question, therefore, is: were there any alternatives? Could this have been done in a different way? The Government could have eliminated the retail investors and had more flexibility over price at the time of sale, but as it happens one of the successes of the privatisation is the fact that 670,000 investors now have shares.

The other way of selling Royal Mail would have been through a trade sale, and of course we looked at that as an option. One of the reasons we did not pursue it was that we looked at the history of privatisation under the Labour Government. and there was one very good example of what happens when a trade sale is pursued: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the NAO report on the privatisation of QinetiQ. What happens with the supposed flexibility of a trade sale—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

In the last annual report and accounts of his Department, the Secretary of State said that the Department remained

“on track to deliver against our spending review settlement.”

However, the head of the National Audit Office said in the same report that there are significant uncertainties relating to billions of pounds’ worth of the Department’s assets, which will affect its financial position. Can the Secretary of State explain the discrepancy?

[Vince Cable]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the significant assets that were left with the dissolution of the regional development agencies. In fact, the job of managing that complex process has been extraordinarily successful.

[Mr Umunna]

No, I refer to the student loans worth billions of pounds. Subsequent to the publication of those accounts, the NAO published a report that revealed that because Ministers have dramatically overestimated the number of graduates who will be able to repay the loans to pay for the Secretary of State’s higher tuition fees, he has, in effect, blown a hole in the Department’s budget. In fact, the Library estimates that from 2015-16 an extra £600 million a year will have to be found. Will the Secretary of State now explain how he will fix the problem without putting under threat the country’s scientists, students, universities and colleges?

[Vince Cable]

This is an absurd misunderstanding of what is called the resource accounting and budgeting—RAB—charge system, which depends on long-term predictions of earnings growth. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if the recovery of the economy continues as it is, the RAB charge estimates will be substantially revised down and the imaginary black hole will very soon disappear.

Job Insecurity

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

My impression is that the policy we have been pursuing is very much evidence-based, and the examples I have given on inspections are in precisely that category. However, my colleagues from the Department for Work and Pensions know much more about this aspect of the subject than I do, and no doubt they will respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s point.

Finally, let me deal with the one issue on which the hon. Member for Streatham spent quite a lot of time and with which he had a certain amount of fun. I refer to the “shares for rights” scheme. Of course, it is possible to develop a critique of that scheme, but what I find amusing is that at least three totally separate and conflicting arguments have been advanced against it. The first is that downtrodden workers will be stripped of their employment rights. When the scheme was being dealt with in Parliament, we tried to ensure that it would be entirely voluntary, and indeed we responded to proposals from the Opposition in order to entrench that.

Another line of criticism has nothing to do with downtrodden workers, but is all about highly paid executives carrying out a tax scam. That may be true. However, a third criticism—which we heard from Back Benchers and which is, at least currently, supported by the facts—was that neither of those things are happening, because not many people are taking up the scheme. If the Opposition are going to launch a full-frontal attack on the proposals, they should work out which of those three arguments they believe in.

[Mr Umunna]

The Secretary of State has argued that he has resisted some of the nastier aspects of his coalition partners’ moves to water down people’s rights at work, but we need only read the reports of what was said on both sides of the House of Lords to see what impact the “shares for rights” scheme was expected to have. That is the point I was making.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I would be delighted to come to my hon. Friend’s constituency and share that success. It is not just about mainstream car producers, but specialists, as she describes.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State talked about the importance of strengthening the national minimum wage, which Labour established in office to secure a fairer deal for workers. With that in mind, does he agree that for an employer to mislead workers into purchasing personal accident insurance, the charges for which would take workers’ pay under the minimum and the purchase of which is not necessary given employers’ own insurance cover, would be completely indefensible and possibly unlawful?

[Vince Cable]

Yes, I agree that that would be indefensible and I think it is unlawful. I have been advised that this practice has happened. The relevant body, the employment agency standards inspectorate, is investigating individual cases and will take enforcement action. If it proves to be a widespread practice, there will clearly be a case for a broadly based inquiry.

[Mr Umunna]

I asked the question because it is precisely what employment agencies employing workers on, or close to, the minimum wage appear to have been doing. I have been passed evidence that suggests Blue Arrow, Staffline, Acorn, Taskmaster, Randstad and Meridian, employment agencies employing more than 100,000 workers, have been mis-selling personal accident insurance to workers which they arguably do not need and from which those agencies have been profiteering. There is even a company, Gee 7 Group, which specialises in putting together these dubious arrangements for agencies. Further to my questions on this topic since October last year, will the Secretary of State now commit to holding a full inquiry into this shabby practice?

[Vince Cable]

I will commit to ensuring that we have proper enforcement procedure. The hon. Gentleman has listed more companies today. We will investigate them and that may well merit a more broadly based inquiry. I will say that the information he has made available, which I think has already been publicised, depends on the information that has been obtained from a whistleblower in a company. The Government’s reforms will strengthen the rights of whistleblowers and put them and others in a stronger position. The hon. Gentleman has identified a legitimate case of abuse and I recognise that we have to deal with it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I know that the Prime Minister visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency recently and was very impressed by the Portakabin initiative. We have a concrete proposal for the establishment of a single market centre to help companies to negotiate overlapping regulations, particularly those relating to export controls. Translating regulations into a common language would make the process easier.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

We had black Friday last week and cyber Monday at the beginning of this week, but, as many Members have already pointed out, the only day that really matters is small business Saturday. I am sure that you will be visiting small independent local shops in Buckingham this weekend, Mr Speaker. Will the Business Secretary join me in thanking the huge coalition—including organisations representing more than 1 million businesses, AmEx, the Ingenious Britain campaign, and, above all, the national campaign co-ordinator for small business Saturday, Michelle Ovens—that has made this day possible?

[Vince Cable]

I am happy to do that, and to acknowledge the collegiate, cross-party approach adopted by the hon. Gentleman. Small business Saturday is a very good initiative, and we should support and sustain it as much as we can.

[Mr Umunna]

The owners of the businesses to which I referred will have heard about the Tomlinson report, which accuses RBS of artificially distressing successful businesses in order to seize assets and make a profit. That is a very serious allegation about a bank that we, of course, own. Tomlinson says:

“Banks must ensure…that robust processes are in place to…avoid conflicts of interest.”

It has transpired, however, that he is an RBS customer, and that he has a complaint about the bank pending. Was the Secretary of State aware of that before he allowed the report to be published, and does it not call the report’s independence into question? It is not independent, is it?

[Vince Cable]

I was well aware that Mr Tomlinson was an RBS customer. He has been very public in his comments about the bank for a long time. He was appointed as entrepreneur in residence at my Department —we seem to have a team of entrepreneurs—and has contributed valuable insights. I have referred his report to the regulator and the bank. Crucially, his accusations are echoed in the report published by Sir Andrew Large, who was appointed by RBS.

There are serious problems in the banking system, and in RBS in particular. Those problems need to be investigated, and I think that Mr Tomlinson has performed a useful service in making them public.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has said that growth must be better balanced and less reliant on rising house prices, but this week he has warned of dangerous and unsustainable house prices in London and extreme problems of affordability across the country on his Government’s watch. Does he therefore not agree that it would make sense to review how the second part of his Government’s Help to Buy scheme operates now, as opposed to in a year’s time, given the attendant risks posed to more balanced growth?

[Vince Cable]

I am delighted to see that the hon. Gentleman has progressed beyond his recent role as a share tipster and is now returning to more important and central concerns. The central point is that the growth we are experiencing is balanced. We are now beginning to see serious growth in manufacturing and the construction sector, and the next big step will be to see improvements in investment. As far as the housing market is concerned, the Chancellor has acknowledged that the Bank of England needs to watch the process very carefully.

[Mr Umunna]

But the right hon. Gentleman promised an export and investment-led recovery, yet as growth returned over the summer, exports fell, and the Office for National Statistics says that growth has been concentrated in household expenditure, rather than investment, which is £2 billion lower than it was a year ago. We all know that he is a keen dancer. In failing to prevail over the Treasury, is not the risk that, rather than marching to the tune of the makers, he is dancing to the Chancellor’s new song of house inflation?

[Vince Cable]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is no harm in the trend we are observing, which is that consumers are now more confident and are therefore spending and generating demand—I think we have both agreed over the last three years that the generation of demand is a key part of recovery. As far as exports are concerned, there is rapid growth in British exports to the big emerging markets, such as Russia, China, India and Brazil—indeed, I am going to Russia next week to pursue this course.

Zero-hours Contracts

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is why a rush to ban certain forms of general practice could have serious negative unintended consequences. That is not to say that we should not do something, but a commitment to ban without having obtained the evidence would be highly premature.

[Mr Umunna]

First, of course people will not want to complain about being on such contracts, because they worry whether they will get the hours of work if they do so. Secondly, the evidence suggests that such contracts were not used during our time in government to the same extent as they are being used now. That is why action was not taken. The right hon. Gentleman said he would do something about the issue back in June. Why was a consultation not started then? Why has he waited until October?

[Vince Cable]

After years of waiting and a long discussion about the technicalities, the idea that we are somehow failing in our duty because we did not rush to act within weeks or months is utterly absurd. We are taking action. A proper consultation will be launched, we hope, in mid-November. On the back of that, all the organisations that have not yet had an opportunity to make representations to me can do so, and we can proceed to the appropriate action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

My hon. Friend is right that this is a major scandal and it is being pursued through negotiation with the banks. As he rightly says, there are major anxieties about the terms of the settlement and some of the products currently excluded from it. I will see the head of the FCA next week to pursue the matter in some detail on behalf of my hon. Friend and his colleagues, and I acknowledge the enormous work he has done in the background to bring these problems to proper attention.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Businesses, particularly on the high street, have found the trading environment very tough while the economy has flatlined for three years under this Government. Does the Business Secretary agree that increasing parking enforcement charges at this time would be nonsensical and drive customers away from businesses in our town centres at the very time they need that custom?

[Vince Cable]

Of course there has been a major problem in many of our high streets as a result of the recession, and particularly as a result of the development of internet commerce, which has changed the pattern of shopping. As the hon. Gentleman knows, parking charges are primarily an issue for local authorities, but the Department has developed a strategy with the retail sector to help it develop areas of growth, including export business.

[Mr Umunna]

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), said this week that the Government are consulting on proposals to increase the maximum parking enforcement charges that local authorities may levy outside London—a competence for which they are responsible. Apparently, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government thinks that would be a bad idea, but he is in no position to lecture given that Conservative councils impose higher parking charges than others. We are clear that massively hiking parking enforcement charges at this time for businesses and their customers amounts to a stealth tax on our high streets. Why does the Business Secretary not stand up for our businesses and kill off that proposal?

[Vince Cable]

I already have responsibility for one of the biggest Departments in Government, and taking over responsibility for parking charges from my colleagues and local councils would be an exercise in departmental imperialism that I will not embark on. I note the hon. Gentleman’s question and I am happy to talk to my colleagues in government about it, but he is missing the bigger picture of how we help the retail sector adapt to the massive technological changes that are taking place, and the perverse fiscal incentives that currently operate.

Royal Mail

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

We opposed the Government’s privatisation of Royal Mail during the passage of the Postal Services Act 2011; we oppose it today. Maintaining Royal Mail in public ownership gives the taxpayer an ongoing direct interest in the maintenance of universal postal services in this country; helps safeguard the vital link that the Royal Mail has with the Post Office; and ensures that the taxpayer gets to share in the upside of modernisation and the increased profits that Royal Mail delivers. Despite that, the Government have pressed on regardless with this sale, and they have failed adequately to justify why they must sell now.

On one side, there is an unusual coalition against this move: the Opposition; the Conservative-supporting Bow Group, which described this move as “poisonous”; the Royal Mail’s employees, represented of course by the CWU; and the National Federation of SubPostmasters. The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), wrote to a constituent in 2009 saying that he, too, was opposed. On the other side, there is the Government, who now include the Minister of State. The Government are ignoring the huge changes that have taken place since the passage of the Act. Chief among them is the more than doubling of Royal Mail’s profits to £403 million, which calls into question assertions that there is no prospect of the Royal Mail being self-financing in the future.

Having nationalised the organisation’s debts by taking on its pension liabilities, the Government now want to privatise the profit at the very time it is making money. How on earth does that make any sense? Now that the Government have determined to pursue this course, there is every sign that this treasured national institution is being sold off on the cheap to get income quickly to a Treasury whose economic strategy has failed. As long as the Government fail to address key questions about Royal Mail, which I will outline, that will be the conclusion that people will be entitled to reach.

I have the following questions for the Secretary of State. First, Royal Mail faces competition from other postal service operators who are not subject to the same high performance and service quality standards as it is, putting it at a competitive disadvantage. How will this not depress the sale price, and what will he do about it? Secondly, this cannot be allowed to put the Post Office at risk. What guarantees can he give that a privately owned Royal Mail will renew the agreement under which the Post Office provides Royal Mail products, which is essential to the Post Office’s future? What will happen in 2022? Is it not the case that he cannot give any guarantees on what will happen when the agreement expires? On the future of the Post Office, when can we expect to hear more on his plans for mutualisation? On what date will that commence?

Thirdly and finally, is it not the case that there is every prospect that a privatised Royal Mail will seek to sell off valuable locations in high-value urban centres for a fast buck, which will be replaced by distant depots, sorting offices and the rest, which are hard to get to for consumers and small businesses? Yes, there have been successful privatisations in times past which have delivered for the British people, but there have also been examples in rail and energy under the last Conservative Government which were badly executed privatisations that resulted in a long-term bad deal for consumers and small businesses. It is therefore not surprising that the British people oppose this move today.

[Vince Cable]

I think the most interesting and eloquent part of the Opposition’s response was what the hon. Gentleman did not say. He did not say that the next Labour Government, if there is one, will renationalise Royal Mail. He is opposed to privatisation, but he is not proposing to reverse it. That eloquent silence will be heard not just by the investors, but by the trade unions, so we know clearly that we are now on an irreversible course.

The hon. Gentleman talks about pressing on with this sale and his colleagues use the phrase “fire sale”. This is the longest fire sale in history. It has taken five years from the inception of the process under a Labour Government. He talks about self-financing. He knows perfectly well what the rules of public finance are—that a nationalised institution is not able to borrow freely in the markets, as it would wish. It is useful to compare the experience of Royal Mail with what is happening in, for example, Germany. The hon. Gentleman often cites Germany as a role model for good industrial policy, and we have many lessons to learn from it. Germany has a privatised mail system. In the past two years it has invested €750 million and will do so next year, raised on the market, competing ahead of Royal Mail in what are increasingly international markets. I hope he heeds that experience.

The hon. Gentleman worries about a race to the bottom in competition. The main competition for Royal Mail has not come from private competitors; it has come from technology. Within the past 10 years, mail has lost 25% of its business because of e-mail and we have to respond to that. Royal Mail was declining. It was in danger of losing the universal service obligation. We are now giving it the tools to compete and to be a successful enterprise—something that will benefit the country and the workers within it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done on the pubs issue. He has played a significant part in influencing the House’s thinking on it. I am sure he appreciates, however, that I would get into difficulty if I started talking about serious people in the industry being dishonest and untruthful. I will not go down that road.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

In the US, small business Saturday takes place immediately after Thanksgiving, on one of its busiest shopping days of the year, and celebrates small businesses’ contribution to local economies and encourages people to shop in them. It has proved to be very successful. A grass-roots movement of organisations, including the Federation of Small Businesses, representing hundreds of thousands of small businesses, has formed to make a UK small business Saturday happen later this year. Will the Secretary of State lend his support to this initiative, which aims to give a boost to the country’s small businesses?

[Vince Cable]

I will do whatever I can to boost the cause of small business. I was with the Federation of Small Businesses at the beginning of the week addressing many of those issues. In my earlier answers, I explained what we were doing for small business in respect of trade, apprenticeships and the business bank, and the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), has talked about deregulation. It is a very wide agenda and we are delivering those aims.

[Mr Umunna]

One of the things that small businesses find most objectionable is the perceived preferential treatment that they see some large companies getting from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, in contrast to the heavy-handed treatment that small businesses sometimes receive. If HMRC is to clamp down on tax avoidance by large companies, which the Secretary of State says is a Government priority, transparency is key. Under the Companies Act 2006, large companies are obliged to disclose details of foreign subsidiaries to Companies House, but it appears that the latter is not properly enforcing these requirements. In March 2011, the Business Secretary said that he would carry out—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Umunna]

Why has the formal investigation that the Secretary of State promised not taken place?

[Vince Cable]

It has happened; I have conducted it. The problem is very simple: roughly 4 million accounts are registered with Companies House and scrutinising all of them in detail is difficult. I have asked Companies House—it is now doing this—to ensure that the returns of the top-350 companies are analysed in detail for errors. If there are errors, our experience so far has been that they are very speedily corrected.

Jobs and Business

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Friday 10th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

There is one major bank that has predominant Government ownership. That does not give the Government powers to lend, because there are significant independent shareholders and the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the corporate governance problems that presents. We would like RBS to lend more, and Mr Hester explained this weekend that he has a significant amount of capital available.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

There has been speculation about the Government entering into a hasty sale of RBS. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will look to ensure that the bank returns to a far healthier position before they contemplate privatising it? On his earlier comment, I agree about the problems that small businesses face in dealing with banks, but does he not accept that the economic outlook has also had an impact on the pressing demand for lending for small businesses?

[Vince Cable]

Yes, there is an issue with the demand for loans. It is not simply a question of aggregate demand in an economic sense. Many small companies have been discouraged from applying and we need to overcome that handicap. On the wider question, I know that the Chancellor is listening carefully to this debate. I read the contribution of the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who suggested that the key issue was value for money for the taxpayer. I agree completely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Umunna]

With the greatest respect to the welfare Secretary, let me say two things. First, I have said that we have expressed regret in terms of the way in which we regulated the banking sector. However, let me also remind him that in the last two quarters of our term in office, we saw growth of 1.1%. During his time—[Interruption.] He should let me finish my sentence. If he does that, I might answer his question—I presume he wants to hear it. Did we leave him with a double-dip recession? No. Did we leave him with 2.5 million people out of work? No; so I will take no lectures from this welfare Secretary about the management of the economy.

After that excitement, let me return to banking. Reform is obviously needed, in particular to ensure that the sector provides finance to the profitable and successful small businesses that want to expand and take on more employees, but cannot access the finance that they need. That is crucial, because so many of those businesses are the ones we look to to create jobs. We know that under this Government lending to businesses is falling month on month, including a fall of £4.8 billion in the three months to February, according to the latest Bank of England figures. We know too—my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) mentioned this—that the Government’s schemes, from Project Merlin to the national loan guarantee scheme and, now, funding for lending, have simply failed to get credit to those businesses.

Every other country in the G8 has a state-backed investment institution to tackle the problem and ensure that their small businesses can access the finance they need. That is why we have argued since early in this Parliament for the establishment of a proper British investment bank and a network of regional banks, based on the German Sparkasse model, to work alongside a British investment bank to transmit those schemes to small businesses. Those are two sensible ideas that would bring us into line with our international competitors. Indeed, I am pleased to hear that the Business Secretary agrees that it is a good thing to re-establish regional banking in this country.

We would have introduced a Bill in the Queen’s Speech to establish those bodies, yet the Government have failed to do so. Instead, what have we got? Last year, rather late in the game, the Business Secretary announced, to much fanfare at his party’s conference, that he was establishing his small business bank. The British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses have said that he must get on with setting it up. Last year he came to the House and told us that his bank

“has already been established, and it will be up and running next year.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 988.]

So where is this bank? The IMF is currently in town inspecting the wreckage of the Government’s failed economic plan. I know how keen the Chancellor is to rely on its pronouncements, so I went on its website to discern how it defines what a bank does. The IMF says that the primary role of a bank is to

“take…deposits…from those with money, pool them, and lend them to those who need funds.”

I suspect that most Members would expect such a bank to be established on a stand-alone basis, with its own building like any other bank—I remember all the questions put to the Business Secretary about the location of the green investment bank, for example. However, what do we find buried in the back of one of his press releases, issued just before the Easter recess? We are told that his business bank

“is expected to become a fully operational new institution in the Autumn of 2014,”

but before then any references to his business bank

“refer to the team within BIS responsible for the development and operation of its policy and programmes before it becomes a fully operational new institution.”

[Vince Cable]

rose—

[Mr Umunna]

I will give way to the Secretary of State shortly, so that he can explain this to us.

What we have is a floor of people—mostly made up of the Business Secretary’s civil servants—in his Department in No. 1 Victoria street that is dressed up as a bank. It is in no way, shape or form what most people would understand to be a bank, and it will be up and running not this year, as he said to the House in December, but at the end of next year at the earliest.

[Vince Cable]

Instead of looking for information in IMF reports, perhaps the shadow Business Secretary should look at some of the business before the House. I do not know whether he is aware that we made a written ministerial statement a few weeks ago explaining exactly where we were with the business bank. At the moment it is marketing its first tranche of funding. We have a substantial team in BIS of people with banking experience recruited from the private sector. He is welcome to come in and talk to them. I think he will find that there is a substantial acknowledgement in the small business community that what we are doing is exactly right and on target. If he wants to question our delivery more generally, he should perhaps read what I said in Edinburgh yesterday about the substantial progress we are making with the other bank, the green investment bank.

[Mr Umunna]

With the greatest of respect to the Secretary of State, he said that the body he was establishing was a bank and that it would be up and running this year. It is in no way, shape or form a bank as most people would understand it and it will be up and running not this year but next year. As for his green investment bank, it will not be able to borrow any substantial moneys until it meets his fiscal mandate. Also, I presume that legislation will be required to set up his new small business bank, as was the case with the green investment bank, yet there was no sign of that in the Queen’s Speech.

[Vince Cable]

As the hon. Gentleman may at some future stage in history occupy this role—he is obviously preparing for it—let me clarify one thing. Is he at all familiar with state aid rules? If so, he will know that under the rules of the European Union, it is necessary to obtain approval before a bank can operate fully in the competitive market of the European Union. That is why 2014 has been cited—because we respect those rules. None the less, we are using the resource we have in the short term to provide support for business. That is what we are doing.

[Mr Umunna]

But the reality is that the Secretary of State’s bank will not be up and running before the next general election, because if legislation is required, as seems likely—he did not really address that point—

[Vince Cable]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Umunna]

The Secretary of State says that it is not required. We will see. I fail to understand why legislation was needed for the green investment bank but not for his small business bank, but let us see. [Interruption.] Let me tell the welfare Secretary that I would love to have a general election, because then I might be able to occupy the Business Secretary’s post more quickly than he perhaps foresees. What we hear from most small businesses is that what the Government have done to increase access to finance and resolve the issues of the banking sector for the real economy has proved to be a let down.

Let me turn to skills and training. Weakness in specific intermediate or vocational skills is a business concern and a source of competitive disadvantage for the UK compared with our neighbours. With almost 1 million young people out of work—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) referred to this—we must ensure that we have system that delivers people with the education and skills that our businesses need if they are to move into work. We could start by increasing the number of apprenticeships, but crucially boosting their quality too. We have heard the Secretary of State, like other Ministers, boasting about creating more than 1 million apprenticeships, but the number of 16 to 18-year-olds starting an apprenticeship in the first half of this academic year dropped by 12%. Indeed, two thirds of large companies in this country do not offer apprenticeships. We urgently need to improve on that and also protect the quality of apprenticeships, which is precisely the point made by Doug Richard and Jason Holt, whom the Secretary of State commissioned to do reports on apprenticeships.

The Queen’s Speech made a vague reference to a desire to ensure that it becomes typical for those leaving school to start a traineeship or an apprenticeship, but where was the jobs Bill we wanted that would have required large firms getting sizeable Government contracts to have active apprenticeships scheme, ensuring opportunities to work for the next generation? There was no such Bill. I still fail to understand why this Government will not proceed with that simple measure. Ministers released details of their plan for traineeships yesterday, which is a six-month programme of training and work experience to aid young people towards apprenticeships or employment. We will have to study the detail closely, but I note that they expect colleges to have the scheme up and running by August. That will be a challenge, given the very short notice.

On procurement, which should of course be used as part of an industrial strategy, the Government’s Bombardier decision earlier in this Parliament demonstrated their failure to account for the impact of procurement decisions on jobs and growth and on the strategic development of industrial capacity. We know that the story is the same with defence. The Government’s defence industrial strategy has been abandoned in favour of buying off the shelf from overseas. In making procurement decisions, we would take account of the impact on jobs when deciding to whom to award contracts. The French, the Dutch and the German Governments do that within EU law—the Business Secretary referred to it—and so would we. If this Government were serious about backing British industry, we would perhaps see them taking similar measures. Again, however, there was nothing about this in the Queen’s Speech.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Last year this Government presided over a double-dip recession. The Office for Budget Responsibility has just halved its forecast for what growth will be on the Government’s watch this year, so the situation is urgent. Yesterday the Government announced a number of measures that the Secretary of State says will help—the employment allowance for employers in respect of national insurance, an increase in capital spending by £3 billion a year and the establishment of Lord Heseltine’s single local growth fund. Which of these measures will help struggling businesses in 2013?

[Vince Cable]

There is a long answer, but I will give a short one. Let us start with the employment allowance, which will provide substantial support for micro-companies, building on considerable success with job creation— 1.25 million new jobs over the two and a half years of this Government and 600,000 forecast by the OBR.

[Mr Umunna]

The answer is that none of those measures will help businesses in 2013, because they do not kick in for at least a year, when what the economy needs is a stimulus now. What confidence can we have that the Government will actually deliver? Let us take Budgets 2011 and 2012. The Secretary of State and others boasted about their infrastructure plan, but two years on, less than 2% of the projects are completed or operational and now he says that Budget 2013 will get business investing. If that is the case, why, having accounted for this Budget, has the OBR revised down its forecasts for business investment this year, next year and in the following three years? It is not exactly a vote of confidence, is it?

[Vince Cable]

The OBR was quite clear about the reason for its downward revision of growth: it was explained in terms of net trade. That was the overwhelming factor, but if the hon. Gentleman wants evidence of projects that are now going through, he should look at some of the increases in capital investment approved in the autumn statement—and happening in my Department with my colleague the Minister for Universities and Science—big R and D projects going ahead in partnership with the private sector and many others now going ahead under the regional growth fund, creating jobs across the country.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I think the shadow Chancellor is digging himself into a certain amount of trouble. He refers to a document as fact, but it is actually a consultation document. Rather more sensibly, the shadow Business Secretary yesterday applauded the new housing initiatives. We will proceed with the consultation, and if the shadow Chancellor has any technical criticisms of the tenure arrangements, he can make them in the consultation process and we will listen constructively.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

With the greatest respect to the Business Secretary, he mentioned what I said yesterday, but I said that not knowing that people who want second homes can take advantage of the scheme. He did not know that either.

[Vince Cable]

The Opposition Front Bench is getting a little silly. Let us leave it to the consultation and see what comes out. I am sure that those imaginary horrors will not be realised.

The second criticism from the Opposition was about the level of borrowing. I was not clear whether the shadow Chancellor regards high levels of borrowing as a good or bad thing—a rather basic question. Is the Labour party in favour of more borrowing, or less? The Institute for Fiscal Studies made a thorough comparison between what is likely to happen under the Government’s fiscal plans and what would have happened under the so-called Darling plan. It was a bit perfunctory, but it gave us a framework and concluded that in 2016-17 the level of borrowing under the Labour trajectory would have been £76 billion, but £24 billion under the coalition’s policy. That is after the revisions that have taken place.

As someone brought up in the Keynesian tradition, I think it rather creditable that the Chancellor has responded to a slow-down in the economy by allowing counter-cyclical stabilisers to apply. I am amazed that those on the Opposition Front Bench find that a source of criticism, when it is good, common-sense, practical economics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

Job creation in the north-east is growing more rapidly than it is in many other parts of the country. It is precisely because the north-east has a higher share of exports in its regional gross domestic product than any other region that it is benefiting from the shift that is now taking place to manufacturing.

[Mr Umunna]

The Secretary of State says that the Government have made a mistake with their capital spending cuts and that they are reversing them— presumably, he refers to the extra £3 billion. However, why are he and his colleagues reversing the mistake only from 2015, when the economy needs the support now?

[Vince Cable]

I answered the hon. Gentleman’s point in Business, Innovation and Skills questions. Some of the increases in capital spending have already taken place. There was a significant increase in the capital outlay on universities, which my colleague the Minister for Universities and Science is seeing through at the moment in the establishment of R and D centres. After the fiasco of further education college building under the previous Government, the current Government are, in a systematic way, restoring the infrastructure of the FE sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

The EU Council is gathering as we speak. From the common agricultural policy to the absurdity of the European Parliament sitting in two places, it is clear that the EU needs reform. It is also clear—to the extent that any reform involves a significant transfer of power from Parliament to the EU—that we all agree there should be a referendum. Does the Secretary of State agree that, although reform is crucial, the immediate priority for British business is to grow our economy, and that continued membership of the EU is fundamental to that goal?

[Vince Cable]

I agree. The way the hon. Gentleman phrased the question suggests that, despite some of the drama, there is a lot of common ground. As I understand it, all three party leaders want us to remain within the EU. We all support the need for radical reform and for a referendum on the conditions set out in recent parliamentary legislation.

[Mr Umunna]

To pick up on a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) earlier, I have spoken to many businesses—large and small—that believe that the Prime Minister’s approach to the EU risks Britain stumbling out of the EU. Companies in numerous sectors—from Virgin to Siemens, and from BMW to BT—that account for 170,000 direct jobs, never mind indirect jobs, have reiterated the importance of our continued membership of the EU to their businesses. In the Secretary of State’s leaked letter to the Prime Minister, he said the Government must build more certainty and confidence for business to invest. Does the Secretary of State believe the Prime Minister’s EU policy has helped or hindered that process?

[Vince Cable]

The Prime Minister’s pressure for EU reform is necessary. I work with like-minded Ministers in other European countries to help to deliver that reform. We are all agreed that we need a minimum of uncertainty to attract inward investment. It is incumbent on all who want jobs in Britain to sound that positive message.

Blacklisting

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

In trying to reflect the spirit in which the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) introduced the debate, let me begin by saying that we would all agree that blacklisting is a thoroughly objectionable and indefensible practice. He is right to focus attention in particular on the construction industry. We all know that that industry is not only important but dangerous, and the health and safety issues in that sector are extremely important.

The reason that the hon. Gentleman has brought the debate is to seek an investigation—an inquiry. I have been listening very carefully and I shall try to be constructive. What I am not clear about, even after listening to him for half an hour, is whether we are talking about the word “was” or the word “is”. He spoke about “may be”. That is rather an important distinction.

Are we being asked to reopen an investigation that has already been held and legislation that has already been passed under the previous Government? I am not trying to be partisan; it happened. Are we being asked to revisit history—frankly, I am sceptical about the value of that—or are we talking about something that is actually going on? If it is actually going on, it is a serious matter and it needs investigation. I, of course, will want to see it properly investigated, but we want some evidence.

The hon. Gentleman made a speech today and there has been a battery of articles in the newspapers—a big page in The Times this morning—alleging that these things are happening. Well, bring it here. I will investigate it if there is any evidence that we can investigate. Let us be clear. Are we talking about now, or are we talking about an investigation into history?

[Mr Umunna]

I believe that what happened in the past needs to be investigated because we know and we have the evidence only now that it happened in the past. I have just explained and taken the Secretary of State in detail through the latest evidence, in particular that given to the Scottish Affairs Committee. Given that this practice happened in the past, it is right that we investigate how it came to happen. Why did Government Departments not know that it was going on? What questions were being asked? What do we need to learn from that?

In respect of the here and now, allegations have been made—I was very careful about the language that I used—to suggest that that is still ongoing. That also needs to be investigated.

[Vince Cable]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that those are quite different things. If we are reopening the past, that is a different kind of inquiry conducted by different people in a different time frame. I need to be clear about what we are being asked to do.

[Vince Cable]

As I just said, if I can see any evidence that, under our Government—I have responsibility in this area—wrongdoing is taking place, or even evidence that suggests that it is taking place, I am very happy to investigate it. Nobody has yet come forward. As regards the past, one of the features that was not referred to earlier is the fact that the previous Government made it absolutely clear that the penalties and redress were not retrospective. That is what the previous Government determined. They could have applied fines retrospectively; they did not. They drew a line under history in 2010. That was their decision and that is what I inherited.

[Mr Umunna]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. In relation to what has happened and whether he should investigate matters that occurred in the past under previous Governments, his Government have announced the results of inquiries and set up inquiries across a range of Departments into what happened under previous Governments. That should not preclude an investigation now in respect of things that happened in the past.

On what is happening now, oral evidence has been given to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee outlining things that have happened. I am not talking about scurrilous press reports; I am talking about hard evidence—witness evidence—that has been given to the Select Committee.

[Vince Cable]

Let me just try to draw a line under this part of the argument. I am trying to be helpful; I do not see any particular value in having a party political barney over this. If there is evidence forthcoming about current practice, of course we want to have it investigated, and I will investigate it. For that reason, I am not going to recommend to my colleagues that they vote against the motion. It might well be true that there are issues here, and I do not want to close the door on the matter if there is evidence out there that needs investigating.

That is one set of issues, but there is a completely different perspective as far as the past is concerned. I will go over what happened in the past in a moment, but that is a different question. My responsibilities lie, as part of this Government, in dealing with things that might have happened over the past two and a half years. If things are happening, of course we must get to the bottom of it.

[Vince Cable]

That is, in a sense, what I was trying to say.

[Mr Umunna]

rose—

[Vince Cable]

Let me just answer this point.

I do not see the value of a fishing expedition. We need evidence that something is happening in order to investigate it.

[Mr Umunna]

rose—

[Vince Cable]

Let me just proceed a little more.

I should like to move on from that point and to ask, out of genuine curiosity, about the way in which this issue has surfaced in the form of an Opposition day debate. The Prime Minister was totally right to point out as a matter of fact that these things had happened before 2010, and I do not quite understand why that has caused such offence. Many of the issues that have been raised here relate to the conduct and behaviour of the Information Commissioner. As the hon. Member for Streatham and his colleagues know, those in the Information Commissioner’s Office are not Government officials responsible to Ministers; they are responsible to the House. The Information Commissioner is a different kind of animal from a Government Department. Many of the allegations relate to the courts, and to civil and criminal practice, for which we cannot take responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

I have read in the paper—and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has now said—that there is an issue affecting the police force and the security services, but has he, or the Opposition spokesman or anyone else, referred the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission? Has it been referred to the security services Investigatory Powers Tribunal? It might be that such referrals did not lead anywhere and that we need to look at doing something else, but were they made in the first place?

[Mr Umunna]

I am genuinely flabbergasted by the Secretary of State’s response. He asks why we have raised these issues now, in an Opposition day debate. It is because of all the evidence that has come out of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. I can tell him that we have seen other evidence as well, from outside the Select Committee, including the exchange of letters between the Olympic Delivery Authority and Balfour Beatty, not to mention some of the stuff relating to Crossrail. That is why we are having the debate now.

In respect of the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the courts and the tribunals, I am not asking him to impose his view of what the judgment should be in a particular case. We know, however, that one problem with the regulations is that employment tribunals have failed because, if someone was employed as a contractor on a project, without a direct employee-employer relationship, and they have been blacklisted, the regulations are no use to them. That is why I am saying that we need to review the law and to strengthen it.

[Vince Cable]

I should like to move on, but I shall just make the point that if those practices are continuing, it would be an extremely serious matter. It would need investigating and we might well need legislative change because the previous regulations were not strong enough. That might well be the case. I am just asking Opposition Members, particularly those on the Front Bench, to co-operate with me, because I am very happy to take this matter forward if there is an issue to investigate.

As far as the past is concerned, I will certainly look at all the evidence that has come out of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, and we will see whether it needs to be dealt with in a different way, because it is a matter of history. I am primarily concerned, however, with the implication that this is still going on. Of course, if it is still going on, it needs to be investigated and stopped. That is the essence of the problem.

Pub Companies

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

They will, and the terms of sale under which that pubco, along with others, is disposing of those pubs is another important element in the protection that we now propose to offer.

The pattern of behaviour we see in this area—where there is a serious imbalance between the contracting parties in the business relationship—is not unique to the pub industry. We see something similar with the banks and small business, as has been exposed by the derivatives scandal, and in the relationship between supermarkets and the farmers who supply them. In both cases, Parliament and Government have accepted the need to act to protect the weaker parties. That is precisely the position we have now reached with the pubcos. We took the view in 2011 that they should be put on probation, with a strengthened voluntary code. We gave them every chance, but we concluded that there was not enough progress. We therefore decided to establish, subject to consultation, the statutory code and an independent adjudicator, as I have described. I am disappointed—the Labour party probably is too—that a long period of trying to get a voluntary process has not worked sufficiently. I stress that we are not starting from the standpoint of a competitive market; rather, we are often talking about relationships that are almost feudal in character. We want to introduce a relationship that is genuinely market based, where there is genuine competition and a genuine choice for people entering the industry.

Let me describe more specifically how we envisage the code operating. It will draw on the existing framework code—we are currently on version 5 and there is a discussion about version 6—but be strengthened to include an overarching “fair dealing” provision and the fundamental principle that a tied tenant should be no worse off than a free-of-tie tenant. I recognise that those concepts, especially the first, will need legal clarification.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State explain why the Government have taken the view that the new code will not contain the requirement for there to be a free-of-tie option, as opposed to the formulation he has just expanded on?

[Vince Cable]

We have not come to a final view on that. That is something the consultation process can elicit. As I will set out, and as I think the hon. Gentleman’s spokesman said too, there is no fundamental problem with the tie—there are other ways of dealing with rental exploitation, for example. The question whether to give that offer and build it into the code is a perfectly good question—there are strong arguments on both sides—and I want the consultation to help us to come to a conclusion on it.

The position I have set out will be particularly significant for rent, because the consultation will propose that the guidance issued by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors must be interpreted in the light of the principle I have described. The code will also need to be strengthened on areas such as gaming machines, but that is something else we can explore in the consultation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

This has been a sad week for British retail. Comet has closed its doors after 79 years of trading. I am sure that the whole House will want to convey our deepest sympathies to the 6,900 employees who have subsequently lost their jobs at the worst possible time of year. Given that in less than a year the owners appear to have lost the £50 million dowry they received to buy the business and left the taxpayer with a £49.4 million bill, will the Secretary of State commit to publishing the findings of the inquiry he has set up into this affair?

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the collapse of the Comet chain has caused great distress, not only through direct job losses but through the effect on the supply companies. There is also a large amount of unpaid credit—£230 million, I think—and not least the taxpayer stands to lose £50 million. He repeats some of the very serious allegations that are being made about the people involved in the company. I take the allegations very seriously and that is why I have asked my Department to conduct a thorough inquiry under the powers it has.

The hon. Gentleman asked about publication. As it happens, under the law I am not allowed to publish the report, but I will try to ensure that he and his Front Bench colleagues are properly briefed whenever information becomes available.

[Mr Umunna]

I am grateful for that reply. In the case of Comet, OpCapita has very serious questions to answer. Cases such as these are also raising questions about our insolvency regime in general, which—in spite of being one of the best in the world—needs to be improved. For example, the number of reports of directors being unfit to hold office has increased, but the percentage of directors being disqualified has fallen massively. The pre-pack procedure has been heavily criticised, and we could adopt elements of the US chapter 11 procedure here.

The Department has said that it is reviewing the overall insolvency framework to see whether it is fit for purpose. For the benefit of the House, will the Secretary of State outline who is to do that review? Will there be a call for evidence, and when may we expect to be told the results?

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this episode reveals wider possible failures in the system. There may well be better ways to handle insolvency—although it is fair to say that in general the British insolvency regime is regarded as one of the best internationally—and we should be open-minded about other approaches. The American chapter 11 system may well be better and I want to have a proper look at that. We are specifically going to have a look initially at a narrow issue concerning insolvency practitioners and their fees. The Insolvency Service is being looked at as part of the red tape challenge, which is examining the regulatory system and how it can be improved. I also want to review more broadly whether we can adopt better practices across the piece.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

There are more than 1,200 people claiming jobseeker’s allowance in the Secretary of State’s constituency. Under his proposed “shares for rights” scheme, employers in his constituency will be allowed to make the acceptance of job offers conditional on people agreeing to give up their basic rights at work for shares. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that JSA claimants in Twickenham will not lose their benefits for refusing the offer of a job because it is conditional on them giving up their rights for shares?

[Vince Cable]

In a statement in the Commons a couple of days ago, I think, the Minister in the Treasury who is responsible for taxation made it absolutely clear that the scheme was voluntary. While the hon. Gentleman hunts for the ghost of Beecroft in this proposal, I will put a simple proposition to him. If employers were seriously interested in trying to set up an arrangement that had minimum job protection for employees, why would they go to the trouble of establishing a complex employee ownership scheme when they could do that so much more easily through an agency workers agreement, which would have far lesser employment rights than this proposal?

[Mr Umunna]

There was no answer to my question in what we have just heard from the Secretary of State. He cannot answer it because this has not been properly thought through. He has said that the scheme has had a mixed reaction. That is a gross understatement: it has been described as “awful” by the National Center for Employee Ownership. He has said that it is not intended for most ordinary businesses. It would be interesting to know which businesses have lobbied him to introduce this nonsense. While we support strongly employee ownership, it is beyond me to think why that must be tied to giving up rights at work. Is it not the case that, just as the Secretary of State was forced to consult on proposals to fire employees at will by the Treasury, he has now been forced to do the same on this crazy proposal? This is a Secretary of State in office but without the power to say no to the Chancellor.

[Vince Cable]

There is no proposal to fire employees at will, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I will repeat what I said: the scheme is entirely voluntary. He should perhaps reflect in a little bit more detail on some of the comments of both businesses and trade union stakeholders. Businesses have said that this is an interesting proposal that many are unlikely to take up. The trade unions have said, similarly, that they do not like it, but they do not expect it to have a significant impact on the labour market.

Industrial Strategy

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to make a statement on the Government’s industrial strategy.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

Creating a strong and balanced economy continues to be the Government’s priority. This means creating an environment in which entrepreneurs find it easy to start and grow a business, and pursuing demand management policies that stimulate growth and maintain financial stability.

There is also a role for an industrial strategy, which I shall set out in detail tomorrow. This means addressing the need for a long-term vision and having the courage to take decisions that bear fruit decades later, and focusing on the things we do best. There are two main themes, one of which is the need for long-term decision making. Many industries operate on that basis, including a company that I worked for, Shell, which thought in terms of decades. The other theme is the need for partnership between business and industry. Very few countries have a purely laissez-faire approach, and we should learn from their experience. We also should draw on our experience; I have learned much from some of my predecessors, particularly Lord Heseltine, who has an office in my Department and is contributing valuably to thinking on this subject.

We have identified several specific fronts on which Government action can have a real and early impact, including access to finance; partnership with specific sectors; support for emerging technologies; creating a pipeline of skilled workers; Government procurement; and the development of supply chains. In the short time available, let me say a little about each of them.

On access to finance, we are living in the aftermath of a disastrous banking collapse. Big firms, by and large, can raise short and long-term finance via capital and equity markets. The latest SME Finance Monitor, however, shows that in the last 12 months, 33% of businesses that applied for loans were rejected. The big banks, including the semi-state-owned banks, are preoccupied with repairing damaged balance sheets and there is a real shortage of long-term patient capital for business. We are tackling these issues by launching the funding for lending scheme, which reduces the cost of funding for banks that increase their lending; running schemes such as the enterprise capital funds and the enterprise finance guarantee to help early-stage businesses without a track record or collateral to access venture capital finance or bank finance; and stimulating the development of non-bank financial sources through the £1.2 billion business finance partnership. The big banks have launched the £2.5 billion business growth fund to provide equity. We are now actively looking at a proposal to establish a business bank that could work through alternative providers such as the new challenger banks and non-bank lenders to direct private capital towards growth and innovation and to corral our existing interventions, such as co-investment and guarantees.

Secondly, let me say a word on the sectoral approach. The second strand of the industrial strategy is to build on a collaborative strategic partnership with key sectors. Of course, different industries require different degrees of business support and collaboration. At one end of the spectrum, much of the economy flourishes on its own. Here our efforts are best placed on making the UK a good place to do business, with attractive policies on taxation, regulation and free and efficient markets. At the other end of the spectrum, there are sectors that require a long-term, strategic partnership with Government; the Automotive Council and the aerospace leadership groups are good examples. Tomorrow, my Department will publish a new analysis of UK sectors, setting out those areas where support should be focused—in particular, advanced manufacturing; knowledge-intensive services, professional services and higher education; and industries that provide key inputs to our internationally traded activities, such as the digital economy and the energy supply chain.

Thirdly, on technology, one of the most powerful levers at our disposal is the potential of innovative technologies. Ground-breaking technologies are often too risky or resource-intensive for individual companies to nurture on their own, so the Government have an important role to play in accelerating the journey from academic research to commercial application. The Government Office for Science is in the process of updating its Foresight report on “Technology and Innovation Futures”, taking a fresh look at technologies with the potential to support sustained economic growth over the next 20 years or so. The report has identified a number of technologies that can have a material effect on future growth rates. The Technology Strategy Board is now concentrating on supporting the nascent disruptive technologies that have the potential to grow into new industries within a decade or more.

We also need a long-term commitment to world-class skills. The Government have focused on apprenticeships, and we have seen a 63% increase in the number this year, with 400,000 new starts in the first three quarters alone. However, we recognise that we cannot rest on our laurels, and Doug Richard will report next month with ideas on how we can gain even more value from apprenticeships.

As employers know better than anybody the long term-skills needs of their work force, we have launched an employer ownership pilot scheme which is giving business direct access to £250 million of funding for vocational training. Employers, working together in sectors or supply chains, have put together a wide range of innovative proposals to design and develop their own training programmes. One of the biggest long-term challenges will be the supply of engineers; we are chronically short of them at present, and have been for a long time. That is why we decided—as announced in the aerospace strategy—to fund, jointly with industry, 500 masters degree places in aerospace engineering between 2013 and 2016.

Lastly, on procurement, we acknowledge that we have a responsibility to take seriously the role that public procurement plays in creating the confidence that enables businesses to make long-term investment decisions—alongside, of course, value for money. We are overhauling the way in which the Government procure services in order to increase clarity for businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. In April we published data on £70 billion-worth of future Government contracts that are planned for 13 sectors over the next five years. We are also assessing what the 13 pipelines tell us about the strategic capabilities that will be required in the future.

Those are the broad contours of the industrial strategy on which we will work with industry in the months ahead. The strategy will contribute to the generation of the confidence that is needed to ensure that business invests for the long term, and I commend it to the House.

[Mr Umunna]

May I ask first why the Secretary of State is not setting out his strategy in full to the House of Commons, instead of doing so in a speech tomorrow?

Earlier this year, the Secretary of State rightly said that the Government lacked a compelling vision. Having made 15 speeches in which he told us that he wanted this strategy, he has at least set it out today. He said, as on previous occasions, that Lord Mandelson had bequeathed him a good platform on which to build such a strategy; for example, he has praised us for what we did in respect of the automotive sector. But why has it taken so long?

There is little controversy over the role of Government in creating the right business environment—improving infrastructure, access to finance, skills, corporate governance and so on—but an industrial strategy is about much more, which is why I broadly welcome the general approach that the Secretary of State has set out. We would not advocate a return to picking winners, but we do believe that Government can and should support and develop sectors in which we have a competitive strength and a comparative advantage. After all, success in the global economy will not come from being quite good at a lot of things; there is a premium on being the best.

It will, however, be impossible to implement the strategy without the unequivocal backing of No. 10 and the Treasury. Lord Mandelson was successful because he was fully supported by his Chancellor and Prime Minister. Can the Business Secretary say the same now? Does his strategy even enjoy the support of his ministerial team, let alone that of other Departments? While, in the 1970s and 1980s, he was working for the late great John Smith, his new deputy—the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon)—was working for Lady Thatcher, and it is her approach that the Minister of State was going around advocating over the weekend. That explains why, while at the back of the business section of yesterday’s edition of The Sunday Telegraph the Secretary of State was making the case for the strategy that he has outlined today, his Minister of State was saying, in an interview featured in the front of the main section,

“Deregulation and privatisation worked before”,

suggesting that that was the answer to the problems that we are experiencing today. Who is in charge of policy in the Department? Who should businesses listen to when trying to make sense of the Department’s direction of travel?

Above all, the Secretary of State must give business the certainty that will enable it to invest, and that means aligning Government support, Departments, higher education, skills and regional structures with his strategy. Sadly, however, all those have been thrown into disarray by the Government.

In the short term, we need the growth on which we can build the foundations of the future. The Government’s overall economic policy, which the Secretary of State continues to champion, has pushed the country into a double-dip recession, and that needs to change as well.

[Vince Cable]

My opposite number challenges me to set out our approach to this in full, but I was trying to respect the conventions of the House, and in particular your emphasis on brevity, Mr. Speaker, which I have done. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) also quotes me as having said that his party bequeathed us a good platform. I cannot remember ever saying that, but I shall hastily correct the record if what he thinks I said is correct. Let me set out what that collapsing platform actually involved. In 1997, the share of industry in the British economy was 18% of GDP, yet when we inherited it, it was just over 10%, which represents the most rapid decline in any major western democracy. Employment declined even more, of course. On international trade, the share of British merchant goods in international markets halved, from 5% in 1997 to 2.5% in 2011, when we took over. That is the platform that we are trying to build from, and it is not a very strong one.

Of course, I acknowledge that there were good ideas, and Lord Mandelson, like Lord Heseltine and others, had a sensible approach to working with the public and private sector in a collaborative way. Institutions such as the Automotive Council are good, and I have been very happy to work on them and develop them.

We are not returning to picking winners, as it is sometimes called. As the hon. Gentleman kindly pointed out, I worked with the late—and, indeed, great—John Smith in the late 1970s. I worked in his office in the Department of Trade and Industry, and we saw evidence of the failures of picking losers. Vast amounts of public money were used in very unproductive forms of public intervention, but I think that subsequently the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction. We must now get to a sensible middle point, often learning from the experiences of other countries, including South Korea, Germany and Finland, where there is a sensible balance between the role of Government and the role of the private sector, and that is what we are striving for.

The hon. Gentleman seems to imagine that there is some kind of one-size-fits-all policy for business, but there are many companies that do not want Government anywhere near them; they just want to get on with their job of making money. Large numbers of small companies are in that space, and we respect that and want to create an environment in which they can operate, but many others are quite different, such as those with long-term technological horizons and big and complex supply chains, and need a more collaborative approach, and we are seeking to develop that.

Let me just emphasise that this industrial strategy has the full support of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and my colleagues behind me on the Treasury Bench, and that we shall be working together on a team basis to deliver it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

May I first welcome the Secretary of State’s new team of minders to their positions on the Front Bench? I note that he is so irrepressible that he needs not one but three minders to keep him in check. His new minder of state, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), told the Financial Times yesterday that he would

“make sure business feels it has a senior champion in the department.”

Does the Secretary of State not feel that he himself has been a sufficient champion of business across Government of late?

[Vince Cable]

I certainly regard myself as a champion of business, and the success that we have had in private sector job creation and in some of our main strategic industries, such as the car and aerospace industries, with both of which I have worked closely, is evidence of that. I very much look forward to working with my colleague, and we have exactly the same aspirations for British business.

[Mr Umunna]

The fact is that business simply does not believe that the Government are doing enough. Last month, the head of the British Chambers of Commerce said that he would give key politicians—presumably the Secretary of State is one of them—three out of 10 for delivery. A couple of weeks before, members of the Institute of Directors went further, stating that Government policies to support business were ineffective in every single area, and who can blame them? The Government have failed to deliver on their infrastructure plan, they have failed to get finance to businesses that need it, and they have failed to meet the delivery targets in their 2011 plan for growth. The Government are ridden with indecision. Three marks out of 10 was generous. How many marks would the Business Secretary give the Government given their litany of failure?

[Vince Cable]

Whenever I talk to business groups—which I do frequently—they unreservedly support the Government’s emphasis on financial stability That is something that the Labour party takes lightly, although we have emphasised it. There is a major agenda to revive the British economy, but in his question the hon. Gentleman made no reference to this morning’s housing statement. At the moment, construction is the most difficult sector in the British economy, because of the collapse that took place in the wake of the boom that his party created when in office. This morning, the Government have proposed a series of businesslike initiatives to free up sites for private development, to put substantial guarantees and resources behind social housing, and to revive a sector that was destroyed in the false bubble created by the hon. Gentleman’s Government.

Directors’ Pay

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

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

In the past decade, the value of FTSE 350 companies increased by 80% while the average total earnings of executives in those companies increased by 108%. So the evidence is clear: many of these rewards, as the Secretary of State said, are not linked to success or performance. This problem has grown over the past few decades under Governments of all persuasions. In fact, one has to go back to 1979 to find things more in proportion, with executive pay growing by 0.8% on average in the three decades since that year. It is imperative that we all do what we can to address this problem.

In government, rightly, we did not rush to legislation. It was right to see whether legislation could be avoided. When it became clear that that was not the case, in 2002 we made it mandatory for quoted companies to publish a separate directors’ remuneration report, and we gave shareholders the right to vote on remuneration through advisory votes. As the Secretary of State said, shareholders, to their credit, have been exercising those rights with some verve this year. That is very welcome, because change and reform must be led by them.

The Secretary of State outlined a number of proposals to assist shareholders in that endeavour. I welcome the binding vote on exit payments, the measures to simplify pay reports and the measures to increase transparency, but I have a number of concerns and questions in relation to the other things that he mentioned.

First, on the annual binding vote on future remuneration policy, it is deeply disappointing that having marched us all up the hill, the Secretary of State appears to be marching us back down again by performing a U-turn on his original proposal. Having proposed an annual vote, he now seeks one every three years, unless there is a change to the policy during those three years. Will that not incentivise boards to draft policy as broadly as possible to avoid anything other than a triennial vote? Exactly how does he define a change to remuneration policy? Who will be the arbiter in each company as to whether a change has occurred—the board or the shareholders? I know that bureaucracy has been raised as an objection to an annual vote, but given that there are many other annual votes, I am not sure whether that holds water.

Secondly, the Government should have been bolder on the majority that is required for a pay policy to be approved and gone for a 75% threshold, as opposed to a simple majority. Dominic Rossi, the chief investment officer of Fidelity Worldwide Investment, has said that such a threshold would

“ensure that companies consult widely with shareholders prior to a vote.”

He went on to say that it would give

“companies a clear mandate and the need for a clear majority also encourages all shareholders to express their views”.

Why does the Secretary of State not take heed of that advice?

Thirdly, the Secretary of State says that employees’ views on pay are important. If that is the case, why does he persist in standing in the way of the requirement for employee representatives to sit on board remuneration committees?

Fourthly, we fully support the introduction of an annual advisory vote on how remuneration policy has been implemented over the previous year. The Secretary of State said that the loss of such a vote would “automatically trigger a binding vote on policy the following year.” Will he clarify to which vote in the following year he was referring—the backward-looking vote that would usually have been advisory or the forward-looking vote on policy?

Finally, I too welcome the CBI’s call for the Financial Reporting Council’s corporate governance code to be updated. Will the Secretary of State consider requiring the FRC to produce an annual report on the operation of the UK stewardship code to keep shareholder activism and good pay and remuneration practices high on the national agenda in the years to come? It would be a great shame if it fell off the agenda.

[Vince Cable]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his positive comments. It was useful that he started with a bit of history. It is worth recalling that in the 13 years of Labour Government, seven Secretaries of State occupied my job—eight if we include Lord Mandelson twice. In the seven years that followed the introduction of advisory votes, none of my predecessors thought it necessary to introduce a binding vote on pay, despite there being, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, a continuing trend for top pay to diverge from the performance of companies, let alone from the pay of employees.

The hon. Gentleman continues to raise the issue of workers on boards. I think that having workers on boards is an excellent idea. The question is whether it should be mandatory. If it was such a good idea, why did none of my predecessors do anything about it? Most of them were nominated by trade unions and one was a distinguished general secretary of a trade union. None of them took any action to implement the measure that the hon. Gentleman is demanding. I welcome employee participation and will expect a report back from companies on whether they have consulted their employees on pay.

There will be an annual vote if pay policy changes. The hon. Gentleman seems to find a problem with the idea that if nothing changes, a policy can last for a three-year period. I would have thought that he would see the obvious attraction of a system that encourages companies to think long term. As I understand it, he has just copied my example in setting up a report on long-termism. We want companies to think long term. Should they choose to use the three-year process and leave their policies unchanged, it would put a stop to the ratcheting of annual pay awards. That process would be a considerable improvement should companies choose to use it, but for the most part, as I have indicated, the vote will take place annually.

I personally believe that it would be desirable to have a 75% vote threshold in the advisory votes, and the FRC will pursue the requirement of a statement to the market. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the FRC is an independent body, and I do not mandate it, but I believe that having a higher threshold would be desirable in that case.

The hon. Gentleman specifically asked what the FRC was doing to strengthen overall corporate governance. It is pursuing investigations on a variety of issues such as how companies should formally respond when a significant minority oppose a pay vote, requiring all companies to adopt clawback mechanisms and the extent to which executives should serve on remuneration committees in other companies. Those are big issues, and subject to the FRC’s recommendations we will have considerable improvements in the corporate governance system.

These are radical changes, and I would have thought it would enhance the hon. Gentleman’s reputation if he was gracious enough to acknowledge that a major set of reforms has been undertaken.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I thank my hon. Friend for his positive response. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who will guide the Bill through Committee, will be able to develop that a little more, and any insights that my hon. Friend has for improving that new idea will be warmly received.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Of course, if an employee and an employer have “without prejudice” discussions that involve an offer to pay off and for the employee to depart on that basis, at present that cannot be adduced at tribunal. The Secretary of State will know that a relationship of trust and confidence is essential to the existence of an employment relationship. How does he see that working if an employer’s offer to pay off has been refused by the employee who feels that there is no reason why they should leave?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Umunna]

No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. As things stand, the position in law is that if a pay-off offer is made during a “without prejudice” discussion between an employee and an employer—which would take place if there was an ongoing dispute—that cannot be adduced as evidence in court. However, if a pay-off offer was made out of the blue where there was no pre-existing dispute, that could be adduced as evidence. What I discern from what is being proposed is that the Government are seeking to ensure that that situation is covered too, so that such an offer could not be adduced in evidence in court either. [Interruption.] I believe that the Minister responsible for employment relations is agreeing with my interpretation. My issue with that is that if an employee in a firm is quite happy and believes that they have done nothing wrong, but the employer does not like them for some reason, decides that they are going to get rid of them and offers them a set sum, the employee should be able to adduce that as evidence to show that the employer was intent on getting rid of them come what may. That is the point that I am seeking to make.

Further clarification will be needed. However, let me once again ask the Secretary of State—I will give way to him on this point—how many parts of the Beecroft report are going to be inserted in the Bill by way of amendment, if any. He has—I think—been clear with us today that the proposal for a no-fault dismissal measure, on which the consultation has just closed, will not feature in the Bill. How many other parts of Beecroft are likely to feature in the Bill through amendments? I am happy to give way to him if he is willing to answer that question.

[Vince Cable]

As far as I am aware there is none, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Beecroft report covers a wide range of activities, including things such as immigration control, which clearly do not belong in this Bill. However, as far as I am aware, no other provisions are allowed for in this case.

[Mr Umunna]

I am slightly surprised by that answer because of the equivocation. The Secretary of State commissioned the report—it was his report—and this is his Bill, so surely he can provide us all with a categorical assurance now that no elements of Beecroft will feature in the Bill. I am happy to give way again, if he wishes to clarify that point. No? I think that people will note his failure to reply.

With regard to what is in the Bill, our amendment makes it clear that the proposals to grant the Secretary of State new powers to vary the limits for compensatory awards in unfair dismissal cases are totally unacceptable. Clause 12 proposes to give the Secretary of State the power to cap the compensatory award, which is currently capped at £72,300, at a maximum of between median earnings and three times median earnings—that is, between £26,000 and £78,000—or one year’s earnings, or whichever is the lower of the two. No advance warning of this measure was given, and there has been no consultation on it. Why? It is also hard to see the justification for the proposal when we consider that the median award for unfair dismissal came in at just over £6,000 in the past year.

The practical effect of the proposal would be that those on average or above-average earnings—middle income earners in particular—would not be properly compensated if they were treated unfairly by their employers. Let us be clear who we are talking about. This would affect accountants, architects, chartered surveyors, insurance brokers, lawyers and mechanical engineers, as well as many other public service professionals. Those people are all in occupations that attract average or above-average earnings. Lower income earners in this country have already been hit hard by the Chancellor’s Budgets since this Government came to office. It is middle income earners who stand to suffer most from this change. Of course, those earning millions every year—who have just been given a huge tax break by the Government—no doubt have plenty in the bank and will not have to worry about this, but that does not apply to the majority of earners in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Umunna]

I will make some progress, so that the hon. Gentleman will have more time to speak later.

Principally, those proposals include: the provision of financial penalties to be paid by employers where there are aggravating features to their wrongdoing; the introduction of a public interest test to whistleblowing—which we have concerns about—to clear up the uncertainties in that area; and changes to the annual increases to the limits to statutory redundancy pay.

I will now deal as quickly as possible with the competition aspects of the Bill. Healthy, competitive markets reward the innovator, the insurgent, and the risk taker. They keep incumbents on their toes, benefiting consumers, and they create the disciplines at home that drive success abroad. That does not happen by itself, however, because markets are not always efficient. I know that that view is not shared by all Government Members. So even when policy frameworks can correct market failures, markets require active stewardship, constant vigilance against unhealthy concentrations of power—News International —and, above all, the deliberate promotion of competition through a strong, robust competition regime.

The Government said in their consultation paper on options for reform published last year:

“The Government acknowledges that it has inherited a competition regime which has been independently assessed as world class.”

In 2010, the Global Competition Review awarded the Competition Commission its highest rating of five stars, and the Office of Fair Trading was awarded four and a half stars, with both bodies appearing in the top five agencies in the world. We Labour Members are rightly proud of the legacy our Labour Government bequeathed to the current Conservative-led Administration.

In principle, we support the Bill’s proposals to improve our competition regime. There is definitely some sense in combining the OFT and the Competition Commission into one body, removing duplication and concentrating expertise in one place. However, the yardstick against which we will measure these reforms is whether they will improve on the existing regime. The OFT estimated that in ensuring a level playing field, our competition regime benefited businesses and consumers to the tune of £700 million last year. As the Financial Times has pointed out, the expected savings of £1.3 million a year from the merger could be smaller than the cost to consumers and businesses if these reforms change our competition regime for the worse.

In addition, the lack of competition is, sadly, nowhere more stark than in the small and medium-sized enterprises lending market where 85% of SME lending is concentrated in the hands of our four biggest banks. This can be contrasted with Germany, where just 14% of business loans come from its biggest banks and 60% come from its smaller local and co-operative banks, which I met when I was in Germany in February. It is a shame that the Government have shown no interest in pursuing the idea that we have been promoting for some time—of having a British investment bank to help address this issue. It is a concept that enjoys the support of the British Chambers of Commerce, among others. We are also concerned about the withdrawal of consumer competences entirely from this new body. Indeed, we have argued that the Queen’s Speech should have delivered a fair deal for consumers with a consumers Bill that would give new powers to the Financial Conduct Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority to stop rip-off surcharges by banks, low-cost airlines and pension firms.

Let me move on to part 5, which deals with the reduction of regulatory burdens. We should seek to reduce regulatory burdens where we can, but—very importantly—not by compromising the rights of employees or the health and safety of employees and customers. This is an issue not just of the quantity of regulation, but of its quality, too: regulations should be drawn up with the small guy in mind—people who do not have the resources to pay for an army of lawyers, accountants and risk managers to advise on how to ensure compliance. As I said earlier, with that in mind, when in government, we introduced the primary authority scheme so that any business operating in multiple local authorities could, to ease the regulatory burden locally, form a partnership with a single local authority to access advice and support for its regulatory responsibilities. I welcome the fact that the Government seek to extend the scope of the scheme through the Bill.

What are far less welcome in part 5 are the measures touching on the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which the Secretary of State has just referred to as “regulatory tidying-up”. This Bill seeks to amend the Equality Act 2006 by repealing the commission’s general duty to exercise its functions with a view to encouraging and supporting the development of a society in which people’s ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination, in which there is respect for and protection of each individual’s human rights and respect for the dignity and worth of each individual, in which each individual has an equal opportunity to participate in society, and in which there is mutual respect between groups based on the understanding and valuing of diversity and on shared respect for equality and human rights.

This Government have an image problem. They are seen as out of touch, and they are seen as implementing policy changes that adversely impact particularly on vulnerable and poor people. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister’s former speech writer said the Government’s latest proposals on immigration policy showed that the Conservatives were a “nasty party” that risked losing votes among ethnic minority communities. In this context, why on earth are this Conservative-led Government seeking to repeal this general duty that seeks to promote fundamental values of humanity and decency in our society? I am at a complete loss to understand why they should seek to do this when that duty enjoyed cross-party support when the Equality Act 2006 progressed through Parliament.

The Government also want to change the commission’s statutory remit, contract out its helpline, stop its grant programme and slash its budget by 60%. This is not regulatory tidying-up; it is undermining the effectiveness and independence of the organisation. If what we are seeing here is the beginning of the end of the commission—and in the light of what I have said, it is entirely reasonable to raise this as a question—for the avoidance of doubt, let me say that this party will fight tooth and nail against any such move.

Finally, I shall deal with part 6, which puts in place additional measures to deal with executive pay. In order to build a more productive and responsible capitalism, it is important to ensure that we bring an end to excessive pay and rewards for failure, which are bad for our economy and for our businesses. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have sought to insinuate that proponents of reform in this area are being “anti-business”, but the recent wave of shareholder revolts has shown just how out of touch they are with business and investor opinion on these issues. Shareholders at Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Barclays, Mann Group, Aviva and other companies have all either been protesting or voting against remuneration packages over this last couple of months. WPP shareholders will be voting on the remuneration of that company’s senior executives later this week.

In fact, the highly respected business leader, Sir Michael Darrington, the former group managing director of Greggs plc, has founded a pressure group—“Pro-Business, Against Greed”. Its aim is to reduce the excessive and growing difference in net pay between the highest paid and the majority, which he says

“is intended to help promote a happier, healthier and fairer society as well as being better for pensioners and investors.”

We congratulate him on that initiative because change and reform must be led by people like Sir Michael, who is also a shareholder in Aviva and Trinity Mirror, with Government backing.

In government—it is a shame that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) is not in his place to hear this—we started to improve corporate governance in this area and to empower shareholders. We introduced advisory shareholder votes on remuneration reports, which are creating so many headlines at present. It is not fair to say that we did nothing about this matter in government.

Currently, there is a prohibition in statute on the remuneration of executives of quoted companies whose pay is contingent on the outcome of a shareholder resolutions. This Bill will remove that prohibition, paving the way for further reform. It will enable the Government to build on our reforms by, for example, having an annual binding vote on future remuneration policy, increasing the level of support required on votes on future remuneration policy and so forth. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State confirm that he intends to bring those reforms forward as amendments to the Bill as it passes through this House. That is welcome.

On the annual binding shareholder vote in particular, we agree with the suggestion put forward by asset managers Fidelity Worldwide Investment that a 75% majority should be required in respect of a binding vote on future remuneration policy. I would be interested to hear what the Secretary of State thinks of that, as I must say that it was with great disappointment that we read that he is likely to row back not only from that proposal, but from the one to have these votes on an annual basis. That represents quite a watering down of his initial proposals. If he would like to disabuse me of that, I would be happy to give way to him now.

[Vince Cable]

Current thinking—we are yet to report back to the House formally on the consultation—is that there will be annual votes if pay policy is changed by companies. The investor community made it absolutely clear that it sees that as a much more productive way of progressing its concerns.

[Mr Umunna]

I am glad to hear that, but I wonder where all the briefing in the Sunday newspapers yesterday, including The Sunday Times, The Sunday Telegraph and others, came from. I am sure that the Treasury had absolutely nothing whatever to do with that. We, of course, have already called for the full implementation of the High Pay Commission’s recommendations, including the proposals for employee representatives on remuneration committees, which the Government continue to refuse to implement.

On copyright, the proposals in clause 56 to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which I think the Secretary of State mentioned, are broadly drawn and, in our view, need greater clarity, not least to indicate that this power cannot be used to weaken the copyright regime.

Let me conclude. It has admittedly been something of marathon working through this Bill because it is such a hotch-potch of measures. As I have explained, there are parts of the Bill, taken separately, that we support in principle and will seek to improve in the later stages. However, other parts, particularly relating to employment, are, as drafted, simply unacceptable. Yet again, after going through all this, we find ourselves back where we started: in a big black hole when it comes to helping businesses to create enterprise, generate wealth, and grow. There is no compelling vision, no confident message about how we are to pay our way in the world, and no connected approach across Government to drive growth. That is the point that we sought to make in our amendment, which I commend to the House.

Business and the Economy

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Monday 14th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want banks to lend to small businesses, and one of the sources of finance, as identified recently in the Breedon report, which my Department commissioned, is big companies at the top of supply chains financing their own suppliers. They should do more of that, and we have introduced a programme, with some Government funding, to enable that to happen on a much bigger scale.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Project Merlin failed, and we were told that credit easing and the national loan guarantee scheme would resolve small businesses’ problems in accessing finance. What does it say about those schemes that, since they were introduced, Wonga has seen fit to enter the market for lending to small and medium-sized enterprises?

[Vince Cable]

Nobody ever argued that the credit easing scheme would solve the problem of small business lending. We argued that it would cheapen the cost, and that will happen. All the major banks are now engaged in arranging packages to enable those lower costs to be passed through. I think the hon. Gentleman will be pleasantly surprised by the take-up within a few months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Umunna]

My hon. Friend is right. I know that his constituency contains some of those industries.

The Government refuse to heed the call of businesses to get our economy going, and they refuse to adopt the active industrial strategy that we need. Instead, we have a Chancellor who is seeking to play the same old Tory tunes and watering down employee rights as a substitute for a proper growth strategy, along with a Business Secretary who is at best seemingly powerless to stop the Treasury juggernaut, and at worst going along with its nonsense on employee rights. We do not yet know what form the changes to employment law contained in the enterprise and regulatory reform Bill will take. All that we have been told to date by the Business Secretary’s Department is that the Bill will

“Overhaul the employment tribunal system, and transform the dispute resolution landscape.”

The Business Secretary alluded to that earlier. However, reforming the employment tribunal rules of procedure is one thing; making it easier for companies to hire and fire their workers, as the Government have spun it in the media, is quite another.

In March, the Business Secretary told the House that we already had the most flexible labour market in Europe, a claim that he repeated today. He also said that ours was the second most flexible labour market in the OECD. However, in an opinion piece which appeared in The Telegraph on 7 May and which was referred to by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), there was the Business Secretary parroting his Tory masters’ line.

“Britain is no longer a lone voice in the push”

for an even more “flexible labour market”, he told us. He then proceeded to round on the working time directive, which he condemned for being “'wasteful”. What has happened in the interim? Why the change of tone? I think that the Business Secretary has been got at.

Let us consider what the working time directive does through the working time regulations that give it effect in UK law. It ensures that workers have at least 11 hours’ rest in any 24-hour period. It ensures that workers have one day off in any seven days. It guarantees four weeks’ paid leave a year, and the right to a rest break of at least 20 minutes during a working day of six hours or more. I know that Ministers do not think we are all working hard enough, but I did not envisage that they would seek to tamper with those basic rights to a modicum of time off and a rest.

[Vince Cable]

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the individual opt-out of which I was speaking was defended for over a decade by the last Labour Government?

[Mr Umunna]

I am well aware of that, and will the Secretary of State tell us exactly what he has a problem with in the working time regulations?

[Vince Cable]

If the hon. Gentleman is following this matter closely, he will know that there has been a series of judgments by the European Court of Justice that, unless repealed, will add very considerably to the burdens faced by companies, and that that was fully recognised by his party when it was in office.

[Mr Umunna]

So, in contrast to what seems to be in the Secretary of State’s Telegraph piece—I have a copy of it to hand—he has no problem with the working time regulations; instead, he simply has a problem with ECJ cases. [Interruption.] For the benefit of the record, the Secretary of State is saying he does not have a problem with the working time regulations. So why on earth is he publishing an article in The Telegraph saying

“the tide is turning against EU bureaucracy”

and

“Britain is no longer a lone voice in the push for deregulation”?

Who is that designed to please?

The reason we are in recession is not our employment law regime; it is this Government’s policies. [Interruption.] The Chief Secretary chunters from a sedentary position about the Labour Government. He has been in power for two years now. When he became Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he inherited a situation in which, as I said at the beginning of my speech, growth was rising, unemployment was falling and a recovery was setting in. Now, after two years at the Treasury, he is presiding over an economy that is in a double-dip recession. We will take no lectures from him.

The reason our economy has not grown is not our employment regime; it is this Government’s policies. The Secretary of State should be working to make it easier for firms to hire people—for example, by giving all micro-businesses who take on extra workers a national insurance break—not enabling firms to fire people as they want, with all the instability that that brings.

So there we have it: a Government who have tipped this country into a double-dip recession; a Government who will not listen, or take responsibility for the mess they have created; and a Government who tell our businesses and everyone else to work harder. Yet it is they who should change course and work a lot harder to provide the policies and leadership this country deserves and needs.

Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I am not aware of any such separate briefing from the Treasury. I am working alongside my colleagues on this; it is a Government initiative, not one from any particular Government Department.

Let me turn from the Trojan horse issue to the very genuine religious concerns that have been expressed. The Government are sensitive to the fact that, for many people, Sunday has particular religious significance as a day that is set aside for worship. We have therefore consulted the Churches in advance of the Bill—the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and the Church in Wales; Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own separate arrangements—in order to emphasise the temporary nature of the changes. I should add that the Lords Spiritual in the other place did not oppose the measure when they were reassured that this would be a one-off change.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Given what the Secretary of State has just said about the religious sensitivities surrounding the issue, why will there not be a free vote on the matter for Government Members?

[Vince Cable]

I will endeavour, through my eloquence, to persuade my hon. Friends to vote for the Bill on its merits, and I am sure that they all will. This is an important piece of Government legislation designed to ensure that the games are a success.

I want to move on to the issue of workers’ rights. There is a worry that the temporary relaxation of the rules will water down the right of most shop workers to opt out of Sunday working. That is a unique employment protection that is not shared by the vast majority of the work force. It is also worth remembering that most workers in the retail sector do not come within the existing protections, and that many people choose to work on Sundays. That is their choice.

I want to stress that the Bill is not a charter for retailers to exploit their workers during the Olympics. Indeed, in response to concerns raised in the first instance by the Opposition, the Government tabled an amendment, which was accepted in another place, in order to ensure that the opportunity to exercise existing legal rights would not in any way be adversely affected should the Bill become law. The amendment reduces from three months to two months the notice period for some employees exercising their right to opt out of Sunday working. Shop workers for whom a one-month notice period already applies—which is the case in several leading chains—will be unaffected by the change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

The existing rules and rights will apply; they will not be changed in any way.

[Mr Umunna]

Will the Secretary of State explain the practical effect of the change in the notice period for employees giving notice of their wish to opt out? For the benefit of those outside the Chamber, will he tell us how long the notice period would last if notice were given on, say, 10 May, and how long it would last if it were given on 10 July?

[Vince Cable]

I am trying to understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s question. As I understand it, if notice is given in good time within the two-month period, a worker will be covered for the whole of the period of the Olympic games. I would be happy to clarify that in writing if he wishes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his leaked letter to the Prime Minister? I know he had some choice words to say about the Opposition, but the letter describes the Government’s action to promote growth as “frankly rather piecemeal”. I could not have put it better myself. When that was put to the Prime Minister last Wednesday, he said that the Secretary of State was wrong. I think it is grossly unfair that the Prime Minister should have the last word on this, so will the Secretary of State explain why the Prime Minister is mistaken?

[Vince Cable]

I am delighted the hon. Gentleman is focusing on that issue. As far as the leak is concerned, I am sure he is aware that it emerged from a Government Department—not mine—and was given to the Labour party, which gave it excellent publicity. If he ever finds himself out of a job, he is welcome to apply to be a press officer in my Department.

The letter had many choice words on Labour’s record in government, but it makes a strong case, which my colleagues in the Government share, and which I have set out in more detail in a couple of long speeches, for the need to get behind successful British companies and sectors, as we are doing through our training, our innovation policy and our support for supply chains. That will happen to a growing degree as we proceed.

[Mr Umunna]

Well, let us look at the support. The national loan guarantee scheme, also referred to as credit easing, has already been mentioned. Last October, Ministers said that they would urgently implement the scheme, yet they only submitted it to the EU Commission for approval on 10 February—more than four months after it had been announced. At our small and medium-sized enterprise lending summit in the House yesterday, RBS told us that the scheme would make little difference, that the benefits in the main would not be felt by SMEs and that the promised reduction in the cost of borrowing would be insignificant. If this is what the country’s largest bank is saying about the scheme, why should we believe it will make a blind bit of difference?

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman needs to wait until the Chancellor announces the scheme. It is a very, very large scheme, far exceeding other forms of Government support. The detail clearly needs to be got right, and we clearly need EU state aid approval, but I believe, as does the Chancellor, that it will make a significant difference to the terms on which small companies can borrow. He should be a little patient and wait for the Budget next week.

Office for Fair Access

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s positive and generous introductory comments about Professor Ebdon, which were absolutely right. I also congratulate him on a report that he and three of his colleagues produced this morning, entitled “Achieving Fair Access: Removing Barriers, Realising Potential”. I agree with much of it. We are all concerned with the same objectives; the issue is one of how this should be done and the balance between the responsibilities of universities and those of schools, but we have much in common in terms of what we are trying to achieve.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the authority of the Select Committee, whose Chairman I have quoted. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) is right to say that we must treat Select Committees with respect, and we do so. The obligation on me, as Secretary of State, was to establish whether any new evidence had emerged from the hearings, and I found that none had. Had the report been unanimous and based on cross-party consensus, we might have responded differently to it, but it was not.

The hon. Gentleman has been very eloquent on this subject, and I know that he is anxious that we should not introduce prescriptive quotas for admission to universities. That is his primary concern. Let me be clear that that is not Government policy and it is not the policy of OFFA. The independence of universities in regard to admissions is enshrined in law, and Professor Ebdon has gone firmly on record as saying that he will respect the diversity of the sector and its institutional autonomy.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Let me start by congratulating the Business Secretary on securing his preferred appointment to this post. We have no objection to it. We have other concerns, however. Notwithstanding the support of the Minister in Antarctica, the distinct impression has been given that this appointment has been secured as part of some trade-off in the ongoing turf war in Government over higher education policy. Is that the case? It has been well briefed that the Education Secretary is thoroughly opposed to this appointment and, indeed, to the Business Secretary’s continued responsibility for our universities. The sector needs certainty in order to plan, and this turf war is deeply unhelpful. We are firmly of the view that higher education policy should remain the responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. What assurances can he give us that that will remain the case?

Mr Ebdon has served the universities sector very well for more than 40 years. He knows a thing or two about the higher education sector; some might say that he knows considerably more than many of his critics on the Conservative Benches. Does the Business Secretary agree that the opprobrium heaped on Mr Ebdon by Conservative Members will do nothing to encourage others to come forward and take up high-profile public positions of this sort?

Finally, does the Business Secretary agree that we should not lose sight of the purpose of this appointment? The Office for Fair Access was set up to promote and safeguard fair access to higher education for lower income and other under-represented groups. What are the right hon. Gentleman’s achievements to date in increasing access? He has trebled tuition fees, overseen a cut in student places of 15,000 and presided over a 7.4% drop in university applications this year compared with last year. The appointment of Mr Ebdon today does not alter those salient facts.

[Vince Cable]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first, rather desperate, point about turf wars, let me make it absolutely clear that this is a Government appointment that is supported by all my colleagues, and that responsibilities for higher education will remain exactly as they are. On his more general point about access, I am sure that he will have been following the recent evidence on UCAS admissions. Contrary to the Opposition’s predictions of doom and gloom, applications from low-income students have been almost wholly unaffected by the changes in the financing arrangements. This owes a great deal not just to the outreach work—particularly that led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes)—but to the very generous provisions that have been put in place for scholarships and other support for low-income families. Access to universities has been considerably enhanced as a result of these changes and not in any way diminished.

Executive Pay

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): Will the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills make a statement on the Government’s proposals on executive remuneration?

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

I welcome this opportunity to set out Government proposals on executive pay. Last September I published papers that explored the issues around the rapid growth in executive pay in our largest listed companies, and embarked on a call for evidence.

The evidence is clear that business and investors recognise that there is a disconnect between top pay and company performance, and that something must be done. We cannot continue to see chief executives’ pay rising at 13% a year while the performance of companies on the stock exchange languishes well behind, and we cannot accept top pay rising at five times the rate of average workers’ pay, as it did last year. It is not Government’s role to micro-manage company pay, but there are things we can do to address what is a clear market failure.

Today I can announce a package of measures that the Government will take forward to tackle the issue on four fronts: greater transparency, so that what people are paid is clear and easily understood; more shareholder powers, such as the introduction of binding votes, so that shareholders can hold companies to account; more diverse boards and remuneration committees; and best practice led by the business and investor community. No proposal on its own is a magic bullet, but together they can enable a major transformation to get under way.

Let me start with transparency. Shareholders have told us that they need clearer and more relevant information about pay, particularly the link to performance. At present many company pay reports are simply impenetrable. Through secondary legislation later this year the Government will require companies to publish more informative remuneration reports on how executives are rewarded. This will start with reports being split into two sections: one detailing proposed future policy for executive pay, and the other setting out how pay policy has been implemented in the previous year.

On future policy, remuneration committees will be expected to explain why they have used specific benchmarks and how they have taken into account employee earnings, including pay differentials, when setting pay. Companies will also have to explain how they have consulted employees and taken their views into account. UK employees in large companies already have the right to request that their employers consult them on issues relating to the organisation, including pay, through the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004. This potentially powerful mechanism for employees has been underutilised to date, so I encourage employees to use it and put executive pay on the agenda.

Shareholders say that pay policy too often appears totally disconnected from their company’s overall strategy. I want companies to state clearly and succinctly how their proposed pay policy reflects and supports company strategy, how performance will be assessed and how it will translate into rewards under different scenarios. In the backwards-looking section of the report, companies will have to provide a single figure for total pay for each director and explain how pay awards relate to the company’s performance. To provide context, companies will be mandated to produce a distribution statement outlining how executive pay compares with other disbursals, such as dividends, business investment, taxation and general staffing costs.

Alongside more information, shareholders need new powers to hold the board to account. I will consult shortly on specific proposals to reform the current voting arrangements and give shareholders a binding vote, enabling them to exert more pressure on boards. This will include a binding vote on future pay policy, including details of how performance will be judged and real numbers on the potential payouts directors could receive. Companies will have to include a statement on how they have taken into account shareholder views and the results of previous votes.

There will also be a binding vote on any director’s notice period longer than one year and on exit payments of more than one year’s salary. Shareholders will still get a vote on how the agreed policy has been implemented. I will consider whether we need further sanctions that could be applied when a significant number of shareholders dissented in the advisory vote. In addition, we will review what level of shareholder support is needed to pass pay proposals—for example, whether the threshold for a successful vote should be raised to 75% of share votes cast. By way of context, last year four FTSE 100 companies failed that test.

Let me move on to diversity in remuneration committees. Having diverse remuneration committee membership is crucial to changing the status quo on executive pay. The right way to tackle this is by having more diverse boards. I want to see more people who come from different backgrounds appointed, including people from the professions, public servants, academics, lawyers, and people who have not been directors before. For example, I would like at least two board members to have never previously been members of a board of directors.

In October a new provision in the UK corporate governance code will come into force requiring companies to report on their policy on boardroom diversity, how they propose to deliver it and what progress has been made. That sits alongside a new code of conduct for executive head-hunters and good practice guidance from the Association of British Insurers on the importance of board diversity, board evaluation and succession planning. The Government will also address fundamental conflicts of interest in the pay-setting process and require greater transparency on the role of remuneration consultants, how they are appointed, their fees, and who they advise and report to.

We have also observed that in the FTSE 350 about 6% of remuneration committee members are executives of other companies. There is a perceived conflict, as those individuals have a personal interest in maintaining the status quo in pay-setting culture and in pay levels, and we are looking at mechanisms to limit that.

In the context of such changes, we must deal with the specific issue of payments for failure. Some of our consultees have argued that all quoted companies, not just those in financial services, should have a clawback mechanism in place, and we will ask the Financial Reporting Council to revise the corporate governance code in order to require all large public companies to adopt clawbacks.

In relation to best practice, this package of measures will create a more robust framework within which executive pay is set and agreed. Moreover, lasting reform depends on active shareholders and responsible businesses accepting the need for change and pushing the agenda forward.

Deborah Hargreaves, who chairs the High Pay Commission, will launch a new project next week to monitor the state of pay at the top. The high pay centre will perform an important role in delivering the high-quality research that this area of debate badly needs. Companies have to show leadership on this issue, and in the following weeks and months I will be working with business and investor groups to build on the current momentum for reform, to agree on what best practice looks like, and to promote that more widely.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extraordinarily grateful—[Interruption.] Order. I am extraordinary grateful to the Secretary of State, but I have been immensely—perhaps excessively—generous, because the right hon. Gentleman took precisely three times as long as he is supposed to take in answering an urgent question. I know he will understand—I listened to him with great interest and respect—that I must make allowance for that with regard to the Opposition Front Bencher’s response, but above all I make the point for the future that those on the Front Benches must stick to the limit, because my concern is to protect the rights of Back-Bench Members.

[Mr Umunna]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for forcing the Secretary of State to come to the House today to set out the Government’s proposals in this area—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) chunters from a sedentary position, but it is quite extraordinary for Ministers to demand greater accountability and transparency from people in business, and then to seek to avoid being held to account for their policies in that area in the House of Commons.

The problems of excessive executive pay and rewards for failure have grown over the past few decades; in fact it was probably 30 years ago, when the current Business Secretary was a happy and active member of the Labour party, that things were more in proportion. We agree that it is right that those who work hard, generate wealth and create jobs for our country are rewarded, but excessive pay and rewards for failure are bad for business, the economy and society at large.

I welcome much of what the Business Secretary says, but his proposals simply do not go far enough in promoting the transparency, accountability and fairness that people want to see. We support all the recommendations of the independent High Pay Commission, to which the Business Secretary referred, but why will he not do the same, particularly given that his Treasury spokesperson in the Lords is a member of the commission, and presumably supports its recommendations?

The Business Secretary and other Ministers have underlined the importance of consulting employees, so why will he not back moves for employees to sit on the remuneration committees that set pay? Employees play that type of role in Europe’s strongest economy, Germany, and on the board of one of our most successful businesses, John Lewis. We read that he would like to back the proposal but has been prevented from doing so by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Can he confirm that?

The right hon. Gentleman said nothing about the publication of pay ratios within businesses. Why will he not agree to that proposal? If I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected. I agree with him on the need for greater clarity about the role of remuneration consultants. They currently owe their duty to the board, as I understand it. Does he agree that there is a case for changing the situation so that, much like auditors, they owe their duty to shareholders?

Above all, I do agree that increased shareholder activism is key. Two issues have been cited as obstacles: that more of our UK stock is held by foreign investors and that it is held for a shorter period. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that need not be an insurmountable barrier to increased shareholder activism?

Finally, on shareholder activism, the Business Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers who ultimately bear responsibility and control the public stake in the banks—RBS, in particular—have said that they are in a position to stop the chief executive of that bank receiving a large bonus while he is issuing thousands of redundancy notices to RBS employees. How and when will that happen? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is acceptable for the chief executive of RBS to take a bonus of the order of £1 million when thousands of company employees are being made redundant?

[Vince Cable]

I start by acknowledging that the issue is, as some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions implied, complex. The best way to proceed with it for the country is to have an all-party consensus. The contributions made in recent weeks by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have contributed in a very positive way towards that, and we can make some progress on that. I contrast that slightly with the hon. Gentleman’s somewhat carping response. I believe that today he put out a press release describing as “half-baked” proposals that he had not seen; he did not know what was coming. That was not terribly clever.

The hon. Gentleman’s central criticism was that we had not gone far enough. Let me reflect on what that means. We have emerged from 12 years of Labour government, when many of the issues could have been dealt with. That period of government started with something called the “prawn cocktail offensive”, which led to my immediate Labour predecessor saying that he was “intensely relaxed about people being filthy rich”. Those were the standards that we inherited. I remind the hon. Gentleman about what happened in that period of government. At the beginning, chief executives’ pay was 47 times average pay; at the end, it was 120 times average pay. That is the problem that we are now trying to correct. Before the hon. Gentleman lectures me any further on not going far enough, he should reflect on why so little was done when his party had the power to do it.

Let me respond specifically to the point about workers on boards. It would be very desirable if there were more workers on boards. The initiatives being promoted in respect of encouraging John Lewis-type arrangements, which by definition will get workers on boards, will take that further. We welcome worker participation in industry; that is one of the reasons why my ministerial colleague, in conducting the Royal Mail legislation through Parliament, laid such insistence on worker shareholding and giving workers a right to participate. But there is a specific set of problems around mandating companies to have workers on their boards. Consider the position of the large number of FTSE companies whose employees are predominantly overseas. How would the work force be selected? Worker participation is a good idea for many companies, but let it be done without the prescriptive route, which would simply not work.

The same applies to pay ratios. There is a lot to be said for pay ratios; the hon. Gentleman may not have heard me, but I did advocate that kind of metric as a way of assessing what is happening. But if he had reflected for a few minutes, he would have seen that there is a big difference between a company that, for example, has a large number of unskilled workers, and another company that has outsourced a lot of its unskilled labour force, producing totally meaningless figures in respect of ratios. So we welcome pay ratios, but they should not be mandated and prescribed.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the High Pay Commission, which has done excellent work; I referred to it during my contribution. I checked back on its 12 recommendations, and we are implementing 10 of them in practice or in spirit. Of the remaining two, one—about employees on boards—I have already referred to. The other was a very specific recommendation on the structure of pay, which we judged to be impractical.

On RBS, let me just say that that matter is above my pay grade. The Prime Minister has said that he will ensure that it is dealt with properly. I am sure that it will be, and that there will not be excessive bonuses.

To return to my first point, we can make progress in this important area on an all-party basis. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to revert to his usual more constructive and moderate approach, and to work with us to achieve far-reaching and overdue reforms.

Economic Growth and Employment

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

Let me just finish this argument. Some of us have argued for a long time that the underlying problem is that, since the beginning of the crisis, the British economy has suffered—I use my own metaphor— the economic equivalent of a heart attack. There is a profound problem, and what lies behind it is the fact that, more than any other developed country, we have quite extraordinary levels of debt.

There are different kinds of debt. Household debt is 160% of gross domestic product and, after the boom that took place under the previous Government, it is higher than in other developed countries. Banks’ balance sheets are more than 400% of GDP, after they were allowed to run out of control. Government debt is 180% and rising as a result of the deficit financing we had to undertake. If we put those things together, as McKinsey has done, they show that the position we inherited is one where total debt in the UK is approaching 500% of our GDP. The only other country with a problem of that scale is Japan. That is the inheritance we are now seeking to manage.

[Mr Umunna]

First, on borrowing, does the Business Secretary accept that the average of the independent forecast that his Government published last week shows that, for all his claims to be working to a strategy to reduce our debts, his Government could end up borrowing more in every single year remaining of this Parliament than under Labour’s more sensible deficit reduction plan? Secondly, does he accept that confidence indicators when he took office and took charge of his Department were not too bad and were improving until the comprehensive spending review was announced, after which it nosedived?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We must have shorter interventions.

[Vince Cable]

On the level of borrowing, let us wait until next week and see what the independent forecast is in the Chancellor’s statement. Of course, the reason why borrowing rises when the economy slows down is the flexibility that is built in—the so-called counter-cyclical stabilisers that we employ as part of our fiscal policy. Unlike the United States and other countries, we allow slow-downs to be accommodated in that way, supporting the economy.

The hon. Gentleman asked me what our strategy is to deal with this problem. I will summarise it. There are three parts. First, we have to stick to fiscal discipline to maintain the confidence of the people who lend to us. That is a very simple proposition that is very difficult to realise and it is something we have done. He quoted various comments from business organisations around the country. I keep in touch with such organisations regularly and go around the country to the regions and nations of the UK. I have yet to meet a single representative of the business community who has asked us to slacken our process of deficit reduction—not a single one. They all make it absolutely clear, including the CBI, that they regard plan A, as it is called, which is deficit reduction, as an absolutely necessary pre-condition to stabilising the economy.

The second element relates to the first. Precisely because we have a large amount of debt in our economy, the priority for Government has to be to preserve an environment in which there are low interest rates. The stimulus we get in our economy—the source of demand—comes primarily through monetary policy. Through the Bank of England acting on short-term interest rates, through long-term interest rates related to bond yields, through quantitative easing at the Bank of England—now credit easing—and through a competitive exchange rate, we have a monetary policy that supports growth and demand. Given the massive debt we have inherited, it is only through monetary policy—relatively low interest rates—that we can possibly support the economy.

[Mr Umunna]

On that point, the Business Secretary talks about monetary policy as if it is somehow a good thing that we are having to resort to quantitative easing. Does he agree that quantitative easing is a last resort of a desperate Government?

[Vince Cable]

It is certainly a last resort in a major economic crisis. I am sure he appreciates that we are living through an economic crisis that is unparalleled in our lifetimes. That is why not only Britain, but the United States and other countries are having to resort to unorthodox monetary policy. That is a reflection of the desperation of many western countries. Our Bank of England has been comfortable with our fiscal policy and, to that extent, has been willing to support it through monetary means.

Those are two of the three elements of the strategy. The third is rebalancing the economy. We inherited an economy that was horribly unbalanced in favour of debt-supported consumption and banking, and we are now rebalancing the economy towards exports and trade. Rapid growth is taking place at the moment in British exports. That is the strategy on which we will proceed and on which we will be judged. The alternative we have been offered is something called plan B, which I think has been renamed the “Antiques Roadshow” in respect of the shadow Chancellor. No serious business organisation is arguing that such financial irresponsibility has any prospect of success.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

No, I cannot do that, because the projects are under construction. When they are fully completed and fully staffed and their supply chains are established, it will be possible to come up with a meaningful number.

The third area of criticism and questioning of the hon. Member for Streatham related to the banks. The motion recycles the idea of a bank bonus tax, so let us go over what that involves. The current estimate from the CBI, which has carried out research on this in the City, suggests that the yield from bonuses this year—the bonus pool—is likely to be something in the order of £4.2 billion. Of that £4.2 billion, £2.5 billion goes to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in tax because of high tax rates on bonuses, and rightly so. That leaves £1.7 billion in bonuses paid out, assuming that the projection is correct. The Opposition are suggesting that they will have a £2 billion tax on bank bonuses. Where is this £2 billion going to come from? It is considerably more than the total bonuses paid out. Even if they applied 100% tax, which is implausible, what would happen, obviously, is that pay would be consolidated. They have not thought this through. Perhaps that is why the hon. Gentleman did not bother to raise it. Can he can tell us how it will work?

[Mr Umunna]

I am happy to do so. I am slightly bemused that the Secretary of State should quote those figures from the CBI. It represents all the banks, so would he expect it to say anything different? Of course, the bonus round has not yet been completed, so we have absolutely no idea what the final figure will be.

[Vince Cable]

I see that the hon. Gentleman is playing for time.

Apart from this slightly mysterious bank bonus tax, what is extraordinary is that we are being lectured on the banking system by a party which in government allowed the banking system to run completely out of control. There was no regulation on cash bonuses. Despite the fact that the banks had an implicit Government guarantee, they were not required to pay any tax for it. We have introduced the banking levy. Labour allowed tax avoidance on an industrial scale and did absolutely nothing about it, yet the hon. Gentleman now presumes to lecture me on banking. I really do think that Labour Members need to reflect a little on what happened in the banking system.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman made various references to spending commitments—or our damaging spending cuts, as he saw them—and tax cuts. This is the time of year when my grandchildren write letters to the north pole addressed to Santa Claus. I have to say that compared with what we are hearing, those letters from my five-year-old grandson are a model of financial discipline and economic literacy. The hon. Gentleman’s predecessor was very eloquent in criticising the cuts to the university teaching grant. The hon. Gentleman has adopted other targets—for example, he has criticised the cuts in the regional development agencies. He has also criticised cuts in the science budget. Last week, he made a very eloquent statement on this, despite the fact that the scientific establishment had been very complimentary about the fact that we had protected the cash budget for science.

When I came into my current job, the one thing I knew was that my Labour predecessors were planning to cut the Department’s budget by 25%, and that is what we have done, because that was the economic reality. I am therefore left with a question to which I have been trying to get an answer. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can be more forthcoming and economically rounded than his predecessor in telling me how the Opposition are going to achieve their plans. Where is the money going to come from? We have a whole lot of spending commitments in every area of our Department, but not a single suggestion about where those heroic cuts are going to come from. Of course we would like to spend more money on science and other things, and of course some of the tax cut proposals are very attractive, such as the VAT rate on building repairs, which would cost £1 billion, but where does the money come from? This gets to the heart of the problem, which is that the Labour Opposition’s proposal is financially irresponsible. It deals with the problem of Government borrowing by adding to it and deals with the problem of Government debt by adding to it.

[Mr Umunna]

The various commitments that we have made are all costed and fund themselves. The Business Secretary has said a lot about banking. If he is so fiscally responsible, will he join us in committing to use all the proceeds from the sales of the public stakes in the banks towards reducing the deficit?

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman’s numbers may have been costed but they do not add up—that is the problem. As for the banks, it will be quite some years before the sales take place. The Northern Rock sale has gone ahead—that is a small bank—but for the major banks, it is likely to be some years ahead. We do not know whether it will be in this Parliament or the next; we have no idea what the economic conditions will be. It would be ludicrous for me to hypothecate about revenue receipts at this stage.

I will move on to my final passage, because I would like colleagues to have an opportunity to speak. I will summarise some of the positive things that we are doing, albeit within a very constrained budget, to support growth. Of course, fiscal discipline and monetary policy have to be supported by interventions. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is a role for state intervention. I am not in favour of laissez-faire. There are things that we can do.

Our concentration is on export growth. There has been 13% export growth over the past year. We are outward looking. The motion does not even mention trade. It is unbelievably parochial. I spend a lot of my time in emerging markets with British exporters—I have been to all of them—to support export growth. I do not claim personal credit for the growth, but we have acted as a catalyst for export growth in Brazil, Russia, India and China—the BRIC countries—of 26%, in India of 34% and in Turkey of 30%. I keep in touch with our exporters by working with them and alongside them to deal with overseas Governments. That is where the recovery is going to take place. It is on the back of those exports that we are getting rapid growth in manufacturing in certain sectors such as the automobile sector, which has attracted big inward investment from Jaguar Land Rover and others.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman is right to acknowledge the big increase in apprenticeships, and it is not simply quantity; it is also about quality. Some of the rapid growth that is taking place is in advanced apprenticeships, including in manufacturing, and we welcome that, but we do not accept that the status quo is adequate. We want to strip away some of the bureaucratic barriers that hinder companies, particularly small companies, and my colleagues are working on that.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

A few years ago, the Business Secretary was described by the Deputy Prime Minister as an “economic prophet”. So in January, when the Secretary of State told the House that

“…economic growth is now strong. It will become stronger as a result of the work that the Government are doing in stabilising finances”—[Official Report, 13 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 429.]

we listened with interest. Given the performance of the economy since January, does the Business Secretary believe he has lived up to his billing?

[Vince Cable]

May I first warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his rapid and considerable promotion? I will not tempt fate by hoping that he makes a success of it, but I none the less wish him well. Of course, one advantage that he has in coming into Parliament only very recently is that he is not personally responsible for some of the disasters that occurred under his predecessors. One of our problems is sorting out some of those disasters, not least of which are the massive deficit that we inherited, a broken banking system, large amounts of personal debt and a flat housing market. All those factors explain why it is now very difficult to launch into rapid growth, but we are putting in place the rebalancing of the economy and the financial discipline to make that feasible.

[Mr Umunna]

I thank the Business Secretary for his kind words, but I wonder when he will take responsibility. In his first speech as Business Secretary, he described his Department as the “Department for economic growth”. The truth is that, under his leadership, it has been the Department for no growth. The economy has stagnated, unemployment has soared and confidence has nose-dived—and that is all before the effects of the eurozone crisis have been felt. Things would be very different if he changed his policy and adopted a proper plan for growth to get demand back again. In January, he thought his policies were working and it turns out he was wrong. He has described himself as a Keynesian, but Keynes famously said:

“When the facts change, I change my mind.”

Why will the Business Secretary not do the same?

[Vince Cable]

Well, Keynes famously wrote in his well-publicised note to Franklin Roosevelt that probably the most useful thing that the Government could do in a depression was keep down long-term interest rates, and that is what this Government have done as a result of their fiscal prudence.

The hon. Gentleman says that we do not have the policies in place; we have two things in place. We have policies for financial stability, which we did not have when we inherited the economy; and on the other hand we have policies in place to rebalance the economy, to reinvent manufacturing, which was allowed to decline catastrophically under the previous Government, and to promote exports and business investment—things that were shamefully neglected when his colleagues were in government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 9th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

My colleague puts the point extremely well. What we are dealing with is not a short-term problem but the long-term issue of how to change the culture of banks. One bank in particular, Lloyds, which I think I mentioned yesterday, already has SME lending on its monthly board meeting agendas, and the system of incentives is being changed to create more of that type of relationship management. Crucially, there are new banks entering the market that have exactly the focus that she describes. Competition, ultimately, will help to solve the problem in a major way.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

We were told that monitoring would be carried out with the assistance of the Bank of England, yet the Governor himself said in March:

“We’re not monitoring. What we are doing is putting up on our website the data that banks submit after a fairly cursory plausibility check.”

The Secretary of State also mentioned CEO pay, which we were told would be linked to the lending targets, yet he failed to check how that would be delivered before he finalised Merlin. Is it any wonder that the banks are already failing to meet their obligations, when the Secretary of State waved through an agreement without teeth?

[Vince Cable]

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new role on the Front Bench. He is a very articulate commentator on economic matters, and I look forward to exchanging views with him.

The Bank of England plays an important role in the monitoring process. Of course the banks’ data are aggregated, but the Bank provides an independent assessment of progress under the agreement, which is important to the credibility of that agreement. Of course, it has pointed out that there has been a failure of lending in the first quarter.

On the wider question of meeting lending objectives, we were assured when the Merlin agreement was signed that senior executives’ incentives would mean that their remuneration was significantly greater than the share of small business lending on their balance sheets. We are now trying to establish in detail exactly what that means for individuals, and we have insisted that more lending be forthcoming.

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

I want to talk about how we progress from the painful but very necessary deficit cuts to achieving growth that is balanced and sustainable. However, I shall start by addressing the shadow Chancellor’s attack. His starting point seems to be that the past is another country, and that 2010 was year zero. I am afraid, however, that all his rather bumptious self-confidence cannot conceal his massive legacy: the biggest deficit in the G20, an overweight and damaged banking system, and an economy that was hopelessly unbalanced.

The right hon. Gentleman’s criticism is built around the downgrading of the growth forecast, but before we get any more of this “Growth is down! Growth is down!”, let us remember what happened to growth in the last two years of the Labour Government—it was down to minus 4%. By the last quarter of the Labour Government, GDP was back where it was in 2006. Indeed, if we look at growth on a per capita basis—that is, living standards—we find that five years of Labour Government produced a decline in per capita incomes in Britain. The only time in history that this had happened previously was shortly after the first world war, so we do not need any lessons on growth. As the Chancellor pointed out yesterday, the European Union and the IMF has Britain’s projected growth comparing favourably with that of France—the shadow Chancellor’s favourite country—Italy, Spain, the eurozone and the whole of the European Union of 27. Our projection is better than any of those.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

This morning at the Treasury Committee, the former chief economist in the Cabinet Office, Jonathan Portes, remarked that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has also pointed out—“The Plan for Growth” that the Business Secretary has published does not show the average growth from 2000 to 2010. Why is that? Presumably the Business Secretary knows the numbers, so does he agree that the performance was not terribly bad, which is precisely what Jonathan Portes said?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

I cannot see how it can be ideological to have a public sector that, by the end of this Parliament, will have a share of GDP comparable to what it was when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) became Prime Minister. Whatever criticisms the Opposition might want to make, ideology has absolutely nothing to do with this.

The comments of the international organisations are reflected in those of the business community. The former head of the CBI has often been quoted on this, because he was critical of the Government. He had some strong criticisms, which we have taken to heart. However, it is worth remembering how he started the speech that is now so frequently quoted. He said:

“This coalition Government has been single-minded—some might even say ruthless—in its approach to spending cuts…That policy is strongly supported by business, on the grounds that sound public finances are an essential foundation for a sound economy.”

I want to deal more specifically with the suggestion that we are cutting too much too soon. The shadow Chancellor has quoted me on this, and he is quite right. I said on “Newsnight”, and I will continue to say, that there is a serious economic debate that we must constantly have on striking the right balance between not choking off recovery and not risking a financial crisis. That is the calculation that we are having to make. Our approach has been vindicated by the evidence, and the evidence is the response of the financial markets. The bond yields, which are important not just as an indicator but because they set the cost of capital for business and investment, are 3.5% for 10-year bonds, which is close to the rates in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, compared with 5.2% in Spain, 7.5% in Portugal, 9% in Ireland and 12% in Greece. That is a fair comparison with what they were a year ago when the Labour party was in power. Since then, the differential has widened by 1.5% in respect of Spain, 3.5% for Portugal and 5% for Greece and Ireland. In real terms, the cost of capital—long-term capital in this country—is now zero. The reason why that matters was summarised many years ago by John Maynard Keynes. Labour Members may revere his memory, as do some of us. During the crisis of the 1930s, Keynes wrote to Roosevelt:

“The turn of the tide in Great Britain is largely attributable to the reduction in the long-term rate of interest.”

That is the basis on which we have to take account of interest rates.

[Mr Umunna]

Of course Keynes also said that if the facts changed, he changed his mind. Does the Business Secretary agree with the Energy Secretary who said that the Government should not be “lashed to the mast” of their economic policy? On 29 November, the Chancellor said that he would stick to his fiscal mandate to allow the Monetary Policy Committee maximum flexibility to loosen monetary policy. If inflation remains as per the central prediction at the moment, I see no real prospect of the MPC being able to loosen monetary policy further. That means that if growth is sluggish, the Government will surely have to look to a contingency plan. That seems to be what the Energy Secretary was suggesting. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?

[Vince Cable]

I am not sure that what Keynes said was a matter of changing his mind in response to a change in fact. He was stating one of the basic principles of Keynesian economics—that the cost of capital has to be kept low.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Umunna]

I agree, and my hon. Friend’s comments bring me neatly to the topic of the Business Secretary’s document, “The Plan for Growth.”

Aside from the two observations that I wanted to make, I want in particular to comment on the document’s proposal to scrap the planned extension of the right to request flexible working to parents of 17-year-olds. That has been cited as a way to ease the burdens of employment regulation on business. “The Plan for Growth” says the administrative burden of extending that flexible working will cost about £500,000. That figure is taken from the Government’s own impact assessment of the measure, published in October last year.

Although “The Plan for Growth” mentions the £500,000 figure, it does not tell the whole story. The assessment agrees that there are additional procedural costs to business in extending the right to request flexible working, which it quantifies as £1.3 million, including the administrative costs I have just mentioned. In addition, there is a £975,000 cost in making adjustments to working patterns. However, that is far outweighed by the savings to business, which are listed in the Government’s impact assessment: £1.1 million from higher productivity, £1.2 million from lower labour turnover and £63,000 from reduced absenteeism, totalling £2.4 million in the first year. Overall, the “net present value” of introducing the measure—the benefit to business—would be £41.2 million. Again that is not my figure, but the Government’s. Therefore, on pure cost grounds, I do not understand how that decision makes any sense.

It is a shame that the Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs is not here, because he signed off the impact assessment with the following statement:

“I have read the Impact Assessment and I am satisfied that…it represents a fair and reasonable view of the expected costs, benefits and impact of the policy, and…the benefits justify the costs”.

Never mind the costs of the measure, because there are some things in society that we do not price up and put a market value on—one is the time we spend with our family. That is presumably why the Prime Minister said on 22 January 2010 that he intended to head up the

“most family friendly Government we’ve ever had”

and why, in the lead-up to the general election, the Deputy Prime Minister said:

“We are not casual about the pressure that many parents feel”.

The impact assessment is clear, because under the heading “key non-monetised benefits”, it says that the measure will improve health and well-being, help employees achieve a better work-life balance and help improve family life. For me and my constituents, that is incredibly important, because we face a problem whereby a minority of our young people are engaging in serious violence. A number of stabbings and shootings are taking place in my constituency almost every month. There are many reasons for that, and there is no one magic solution to resolving these issues, but I am clear that we need to help adults spend more time with their families. Extending the right to request flexible working to parents of 17-year-olds—teenagers in that key group—is essential to helping them provide the guidance that many young people need in my community.

[Vince Cable]

rose—

[Mr Umunna]

I will give way shortly.

I have come to the Chamber from this morning’s Treasury Committee sitting, where I asked Jonathan Portes, who until February was chief economist at the Cabinet Office, about this issue. I asked him whether abolishing the right to request flexible working for the parents of 17-year-olds would make a big difference in increasing GDP or growth. He made it very clear that scrapping the extension will “do nothing for growth”. I then asked HSBC’s chief economist whether he would be revising his GDP figures as a result of the scrapping of the measure, and he told me that he would not.

This measure seems to be a gimmick, which tends to suggest that the Government think that watering down employee rights is a substitute for a properly thought out growth strategy. All the figures I have just presented and all the arguments I have just made for the introduction of the extension, which was planned for April, are in the Government’s own impact assessment of the measure. Will the Government think again about it? I grant that they do not and will not accept our arguments to revise their plan for fiscal consolidation, but I suggest that it would be very wise for them to think again on this small measure.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

11. What discussions he has had with representatives of the banking industry on payment of bonuses since 21 December 2010.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

I meet the banks frequently to discuss a range of issues, remuneration being one of them. As confirmed by the Chancellor on Tuesday, he and I are in discussions with them to see whether we can reach a new settlement in which banks show restraint and pay smaller bonuses than they would otherwise have done, and demonstrate greater transparency and disclosure.

[Mr Umunna]

On 23 November the Business Secretary said:

“Transparency is key to creating confidence in any commitment from our banks to behave more responsibly on pay”.

Yet his efforts in Cabinet to implement a City pay and bonus disclosure scheme have come to nothing. On 19 December he was still claiming:

“There is much more disclosure in some other Western countries, and this is something we can do, something I can do.”

Yet the Chancellor will not allow him to do anything. Does not the Government’s inaction on this issue demonstrate that we have a Business Secretary in office but increasingly out of power?

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman tells a very interesting fictional story about Cabinet discussions. On transparency, we have a system of disclosure in this country for directors of public companies, as I am sure he is aware.

[Mr Umunna]

I was talking about bankers.

[Vince Cable]

In relation to banking, we are looking in our discussions at how to strengthen the system in line with international practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

T7. The Business Secretary campaigned under the slogan “A fair banking system—change that works for you”. Eric Daniels, the outgoing CEO of the part-publicly owned state banking group Lloyds, will reportedly be taking home a package of £4 million in the current pay round—£2 million by way of bonuses and £2 million by way of incentives. Does the Business Secretary regard that as acceptable, and if not, what action will he be taking?

[Vince Cable]

I am amazed that Opposition Members keep dragging up issues relating to the contracts of senior executives in the semi-nationalised banking sector that they negotiated without proper support for the companies to which they are due to lend.