Newport Wafer Fab

Wayne David Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who is on the Welsh Affairs Committee as well, I think—[Hon. Members: “He’s the Chair.”] With correction. Either way, he knows a lot about this subject and is therefore an expert in it. On the timetable that he asks about, it is somewhat prescribed in the final order. I cannot go into excessive detail about it. There is a balance between trying to move too quickly and therefore putting the business and jobs at risk, and moving at the appropriate pace, which I hope will see a successful outcome. I reassure my right hon. Friend, and the whole House, that I will be working closely on this issue to ensure that we bring certainty as soon as we can, without jeopardising what needs to happen next.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State aware of the proposals that have come forward from the company directly to address the Government’s concerns? Those include the offer for the Government to oversee the reproduction process. Is he fully aware that this company and production process is of central importance not just to Newport, important as that is, but to the whole south-east Wales economy?

[Grant Shapps]

The Government would not be looking to take over and run the semiconductor business. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point about its place in the chain. It is worth mentioning, because some people imagine that it still does what it did when it was Newport Wafer Fab—build semiconductors designed by others and essentially be a factory for a lot of other people—that that is not what it does under Nexperia; it produces for one specific owner, and most of the products go abroad. I am keen to make sure that the entire supply chain is maintained, but the hon. Gentleman will understand, as I am sure everybody in the House does, that national security has to be the No. 1 consideration while we work through this issue.

Energy Update

Wayne David Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I do not think that the hon. Lady will have long to wait. I say to her that we absolutely share those concerns. All Government Ministers, at least in the Commons, are obviously constituency MPs as well, and we have these kinds of cases in our constituencies, including in my constituency. We are well aware of the big rises in energy prices being faced by many businesses at the end of their contract when taking up a new contract.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Manufacturing in this country is facing a truly terrible crisis. For example, OGM Moulding Innovation employs 220 people in England and Wales, including in my constituency of Caerphilly, and it faces a massive increase in its energy costs. Unless something is done urgently, it faces closing three factories. It does not qualify for special support, because it is not deemed an energy-intensive company. Nevertheless, it uses a huge amount of energy. My plea is very simple and straightforward: will the Government give a commitment that they will come forward in the next few days with comprehensive packages to help companies such as OGM Moulding Innovation?

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his concern for his constituency-based business. As I said in answer to the previous question from the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), we are all keenly aware of the difficulties that many businesses are in. On the other engagement that we have had with the sector, the Secretary of State has been meeting energy suppliers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has heard loud and clear from the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, Make UK and others. The Government are of course keenly aware of the situation, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman will have long to wait to hear the response.

Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Delivery, Protection and Trust Services) Regulations 2022

Wayne David Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 General Committees

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I have just three questions for the Minister to tease out some more facts about what is being suggested. As she said, this is an important area, and there is real concern that a large amount of money is still coming into London, in particular from Russia. London has the unenviable reputation as one of the money-laundering capitals of the world—if not the money-laundering capital—so this matter is of some importance.

My first question is about the territorial extent of this piece of legislation. The explanatory memorandum says that the purpose of the instrument is to

“require certain documents to be delivered to the Registrar of Companies of England and Wales”.

However, paragraph 11.1 states:

“Overseas entities who already own property after certain dates in Scotland or England and Wales”.

Why is Scotland referred to in that paragraph, but not elsewhere? Does the measure actually apply to England and Wales—in which case is there an agreement with the Scottish Government for a separate and complementary piece of legislation—or is there agreement for the legislation to apply in Scotland as it will apply to England and Wales?

My second question is about the use of the word “deter” in paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory memorandum. We all believe in the principle of deterrence, but as we all know, deterrence sometimes does not work. Rather than simply deter this illegal practice and disrupt crime, should we not be aiming to stop it? Would that not be a far firmer, more categorical and legally sound term to use in the secondary legislation?

My third and final question is a technical one. In her introduction, the Minister mentioned that there are affirmative and negative resolution procedures with regard to legislation in the Commons and the Lords, so why is the procedure for this measure separate from that for similar statutory instruments that are being approved?

[Jane Hunt]

I am grateful to Committee members for their contributions. The Government are committed to ensuring the register of overseas entities strikes the right balance between improving transparency and minimising burdens on legitimate commercial activity. The measures contained in the instrument will play a key part in the effectiveness of the register from its launch, which is expected on 1 August.

That begins to answer some of the questions from the hon. Member for Sefton Central, who talked about protections and ensuring that the system is not abused, with 163 of 436 applications being made on the existing register. There will be a process in place with clear guidelines, which will be coming out shortly and be ready for 1 August. That will help to provide support, and ensure that protections are in place and robustly followed. The hon. Member for Caerphilly—I think it is Caerphilly, but I might be wrong.

[Wayne David]

Absolutely. Just think of the cheese and you will be all right.

[Jane Hunt]

The hon. Member for Caerphilly talked about England and Wales, and referred to Scotland being separate. The reason for that is that Land Registry information was gathered at different times. We will start with England and Wales being retrospective to January 1999, but with Scotland only as far back as December 2014, because that is when the processes were in place. That covers what the hon. Member was talking about.

These regulations are essential for the register of overseas entities to operate effectively from the outset. Mandating digital delivery for certain documents ensures that the registrar is able to receive and process information in a timely manner. An effective protection regime will protect those at real risk of serious harm, because of their link with an overseas entity, from the public disclosure of their details. That information must still be provided, and it will be available to law enforcement.

The measures on trustees allow for a consistent approach to dealing with corporate and individual trustees. Corporate trustees will be brought within scope, making it harder for corporate structures to be altered to avoid reporting requirements. The register of overseas entities provides a novel approach, setting a new global standard for transparency, and levels the playing field with property owned by UK companies, which must already disclose their beneficial owners to Companies House.

The register is a crucial part of the Government’s fight against illicit finance. The forthcoming economic crime and corporate transparency Bill is being finalised at pace, and it is expected to be introduced to Parliament shortly after the summer recess. The Bill will feature substantial changes to UK company and partnership law, and will be complementary to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. I hope the Committee will approve the instrument.

Question put and agreed to.

Storm Eunice

Wayne David Excerpts

Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

As I suggested in the statement, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we are working very closely with the distribution network operators to ensure adequate physical support. There is also a compensation scheme, which is operated with Ofgem. I personally raised the amount that people could be compensated in the aftermath of Storm Arwen, and we will stick to that this time. There is plenty of support for his constituents.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Last week, we had a red alert for much of south Wales. The Minister has said that there have been a number of discussions with electricity companies, including Western Power Distribution, but can he tell the House what discussion has taken place with the Welsh Government?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

We speak to officials in the devolved Administrations on a regular basis. I spoke only to WPD and the distribution network companies, but our officials engage with DA colleagues all the time.

Cavity Wall Insulation: Complaints

Wayne David Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Indeed, it would have been wrong for him not to intervene. I do agree with him: this is an appalling failure on the part of businesses.

I commend the basis of the Government schemes to which I referred. They were admirable in their intent—and, indeed, they still exist today—but it has now become clear that many properties that have been retrofitted with cavity wall insulation should never have been retrofitted in the first place, and that in many cases the works have been so shoddy that people have been left with significant damage to their homes.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate. May I briefly cite one example that reinforces the excellent point that he is making? My constituent Mr Robert Hughes, of Gilfach, Bargoed, bought a property which, according to his surveyor, had problems involving cavity wall insulation. The Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency said that the insulation had been fitted properly, although that was clearly not the case. CIGA refused to respond to my constituent’s concerns, and even refused to respond to his phone calls. I think that it should be examined carefully, because it is clearly at fault and is clearly not operating as it should be.

[Chris Elmore]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I shall say more about CIGA shortly, and about what I think could be done if Ministers were willing to intervene.

If installed incorrectly or in inappropriate properties, insulation can act as a bridge for moisture to move from the external to the internal walls, which can result in high levels of damp. Not only can damp cause higher energy bills—which is totally counter to the purpose of such schemes—but it can cause significant health issues for residents. The science tells us that regions affected by high levels of wind-driven rain are subject to a much greater risk of damp and mould-related issues. Effective safeguards are therefore vital in such areas to ensure that any retrofitting work does not make the problems of homeowners and renters worse rather than better.

Sadly, however, when we look at the map of the areas across the country that are most badly affected by wind-blown rain, we see that many of the areas in which there have been reports of high levels of cavity wall insulation complaints form an almost directly superimposable map. It is clear that something went wrong, and it is clear that unscrupulous companies have been taking advantage of Government schemes to make a quick buck.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

I thought that was an informed and well-researched speech, so I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for it and congratulate him on securing this important debate. I found one phrase in his speech particularly engaging, as it sums up what we are doing in this House, and that was when he referred to “proper access to redress”. That is a universal theme in this place. All constituency MPs feel that we want to give our constituents proper access to redress, and it was a very fair observation.

The Government acknowledge the charge that some companies have installed CWI in homes that were unsuitable for those measures and that they have done so using poor building practices. We also acknowledge that some of these companies have, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, gone into liquidation, which has meant that they have avoided any redress to former customers. But it is precisely for those reasons that from 1 January this year we introduced new design and installation standards into our main domestic energy-efficiency policy, the energy company obligation. I will talk a bit more about that in a moment.

Let me give some background. Cavity wall insulation has in the past been delivered through several Government schemes, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in passing. ECO is the most effective at protecting consumers. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that some of the schemes did not work, which is why we are having this debate. The current iteration of the scheme, ECO3, is worth £640 million a year and will run until March 2022. Since it commenced in its first iteration in 2013, ECO has delivered nearly 2.7 million heating and insulation measures in more than 2 million households, including the installation of boilers, electric storage heaters and wall insulation.

I know that the hon. Gentleman said that he is not against cavity wall insulation but wants to raise the issue of the egregious and unacceptable cowboy companies that are exploiting vulnerable people, but I have to say that more than 8% of the homes in his constituency have received measures under the scheme and, as far as I understand it, the vast majority of them have worked out in a beneficial way. The current focus of ECO is on fuel poverty. It reduces the heating bills of those households that are least able to insulate and heat their homes. The hon. Gentleman made the point that many of the people who were exposed to these sharp practices were the most vulnerable people in our society. The ECO scheme is directly focused on that population.

In Great Britain, cavity wall insulation is present in around 70% of the homes for which it is appropriate. It reduces energy bills and saves carbon. However, I fully accept that the insulation work carried out under the predecessors of the ECO scheme did not meet the standards that are now required—I am afraid most cavity wall insulation was installed under those schemes —which is why, from the start of ECO in 2013, the Government made clear guarantees and specific installation standards a requirement, to improve consumer protection. In addition, to monitor compliance, some 5% of all the measures taken are independently checked and the result is reported to the administrator, which is Ofgem. Installers of cavity wall insulation also now have to provide a 25-year guarantee for the measures that they install.

Nevertheless, we know that standards and consumer protection can improve. The hon. Gentleman mentioned an independent review; we are implementing the recommendations of the comprehensive and independent Each Home Counts review of quality and standards. As I have mentioned, from 1 January this year all installers that work under ECO have to be registered with TrustMark, which is the new Government-endorsed quality framework for energy efficiency. Compliance with TrustMark leads to improved and comprehensive consumer protection, and that includes a clear route to the redress that the hon. Gentleman talked about for his constituents. We now have updated design and we have installation standards, so the picture today is far better than the one that he described.

I fully understand and appreciate that we have had historical problems. We have consistently tried to improve standards, but we are aware that some historical installations of CWI have led to significant problems. Those problems have been seized upon by some companies that are, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, part of the evolving claims culture. There are instances of claims management companies having contacted householders directly to report that they may be able to get compensation for failed cavity wall insulation. I am not saying that this is the case in the majority of instances to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but it has been reported that householders have been led to believe that their insulation is deficient when it is working perfectly reasonably.

The Government have recently published additional guidance for consumers who suspect that they may have had faulty cavity wall insulation installed in their homes. This published guidance is useful for some people who feel that they may have been led astray. My Department is consistently working with the ECO administrator, Ofgem, the Treasury, the Insurance Fraud Bureau and the Financial Conduct Authority to explore further options for addressing this issue across the sector.

I do not know the details that the hon. Gentleman very ably set out in his speech. The first that I heard of many of them was today; I read the article that he had written and I was aware of some of the difficulties. What I would say in the spirit of candour that he adopted when he opened his remarks is that I am very happy to meet him and to discuss some of the more specific cases with which he is very familiar and with which, regrettably, I am less familiar. None the less, I do know the policy and the various schemes under which many of his constituents might have sought or had this insulation installed.

Broadly, cavity wall insulation remains one of the most cost-effective measures delivered under the ECO scheme, and we are absolutely committed to making sure that a measure of confidence in ECO and CWI continues. To reduce the chances of poor insulation, the Department continues to engage with suppliers, the industry and also with TrustMark, to ensure that continuous improvement in standards. My officials also work closely with the main provider of guarantees, the Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency, which, when I have spoken to its representatives, has embraced the move to more rigorous standards.

It is not the place for me, as a Minister at the Dispatch Box, to comment on those specific charges about individuals. That is not what I would be expected to do. What I would be happy to do is to talk more in a private situation—one on one—so that he can explain the particular faults and irregularities in CIGA as they transpired to him.

[Wayne David]

But there are many.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

There may well be many—

Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme

Wayne David Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I come from a mining family. Both of my grandfathers were coalminers. One worked in the Garw and Llynfi valleys and the so-called south crop, and the other worked in coalmines close by. Today, I represent a former mining constituency. My constituency contains the village of Senghenydd, which in 1913 saw the worst mining disaster in the whole of the British coalfield: 439 men and boys lost their lives in an absolutely horrific explosion. More recently, the collieries of Bedwas and Penallta closed immediately after the miners strike of 1984-85. They were two of the largest collieries in the whole of south Wales and the effect on the local area was devastating. What is more, no real attempt was made to provide alternative employment.

The legacy of coalmining in my area left two deep scars. The first is the issue of miners’ compensation for dust. That issue loomed large during my first years in the House. After a long campaign and a hard fight, many former miners did receive the compensation they needed. Not all of them. There were surface workers who did not get any compensation, even though they suffered from dust. Nevertheless, it was a hard fight.

The second big issue is the mineworkers’ pension scheme. As we have heard this evening, this has not been resolved. The essence of the problem is that the Government and the scheme’s trustees came to an agreement to share the surplus of the scheme 50-50. Essentially, that was an arbitrary division. By 2000, it was clear that the scheme was not working as many people intended it to work. The Coalfield Communities Campaign argued at that time that it was too generous a split for the Government. It queried the actuarial advice, saying it was too cautious. Perhaps we have to cast doubt on the advice itself and whether proper advice of any kind was provided. It would be good, as has been called for, if we saw from the Government the advice received at the time.

A review did take place, but because of market instability it came to the conclusion that there should be no change. The result has been that the surplus has become a real surplus. It has escalated hugely, so that from 1994 to November 2018 we have seen a surplus going to the Government of £4.5 billion. That is a heck of a lot of money by any standards—a real windfall.

The Government have used the justification that much of the money is used to help former coalfield communities. I would make the point that that should not be the case, because money should be provided from other resources. I also have to question whether that money has in fact been used to help those former communities. What is absolutely certain in my view is that that money should also be going to help former miners and their widows. That is where, morally, it ought to go, in total. That is why we need a commitment to a fundamental review, the objective of which should be that the full benefit of the pension scheme should go to the miners and their widows. In short, we are asking this evening that the miners should, at long last, have justice.

GKN Aerospace, Kings Norton

Wayne David Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2019 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is always a pleasure to see a fellow Lancastrian in the Chair.

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), for all the work he has done to support UK business and industry, which I am sure he will continue to do for many years to come.

I represent the constituency of Pendle, which is home to several large aerospace businesses, so I fully appreciate the pride that the constituents of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield feel in working for a company like GKN, which can trace its roots back to 1759 and the birth of the industrial revolution. I also appreciate the impact of the loss of jobs on an area, with aerospace jobs typically paying around 43% above the national average. I greatly sympathise with the staff who will be affected by the company’s decision to close the Kings Norton site by 2021. I say that as someone whose family has a long-standing association with the aerospace sector, with three generations of my family working at Chadderton and Woodford for Avro, the firm that produced the legendary Lancaster and Vulcan aircraft. I know the pride that my family members felt in working for such a great British company, and even years after his retirement, my uncle Tom worked on projects celebrating the company’s achievements. I know that employees of GKN share a similar sense of pride in working for such a great British company, and I commend the hon. Gentleman’s dedication and passionate advocacy on behalf of his constituents.

I turn to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I can confirm that Melrose informed both my Department and the Ministry of Defence of the proposals to close the site on 1 April. Since then, there have been ongoing discussions between GKN and the Government on how best to support workers. He asked whether any alternatives to closing the site had been discussed. I am sure he will appreciate that this was a commercial decision for the company, but in our conversations GKN has said that it is at an early stage in the process. It has confirmed that it will do all it can to support the 172 affected employees, including providing help in seeking alternative employment both within and outside GKN.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman cannot intervene from the Front Bench.

Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) for securing the debate, for her excellent speech and for the opportunity to speak very briefly on an issue that I am extremely passionate about. Many of us are now familiar with the shocking headline figures behind the mineworkers’ pension scheme story. The Government have received nearly £4.5 billion from the MPS since 1994. They have never had to pay a penny into the scheme in their role as guarantor and they are still pocketing in the region of £142 million a year. Those figures do not even include any moneys that they have received from the other coal pension scheme—the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, from which they have also made billions of pounds.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what is absolutely fundamental is that at the time of privatisation, any surplus was envisaged as a safety net, not a cash cow for the Government?

[Gloria De Piero]

My hon. Friend absolutely hits the nail on the head.

Industrial Strategy

Wayne David Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. First, in terms of what was achieved before, he is right to recognise that we are building on what have been successes. Successful arrangements that have been put in place in the process industries, for example, are recognised and built on in the strategy. It is very important that we have a long-term approach. He is absolutely right; this is not my Department’s industrial strategy, my industrial strategy or even the Government’s industrial strategy. The ambition for this strategy is to unite all the nations of the United Kingdom and the UK Government certainly, but also the leaders of our cities, towns, counties and universities. The approach we have taken in developing the strategy is precisely for that purpose.

I have a set of responsibilities which the right hon. Gentleman will know, from his tenure in my Department, are limited to those allocated to the Business Department. However, when it comes to skills or investment in transport infrastructure, for example, it is vital that all join together. One of the strategy’s purposes is that we can clearly brigade in a way that reinforces the different contributions.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Greg Clark]

I will, then I will make progress.

[Wayne David]

On that point, one crucial aspect of our industrial base is the defence sector, yet one of the surprising things about the Government’s industrial strategy is that the defence sector is hardly mentioned, if at all.

[Greg Clark]

I would not read too much into that. The defence industrial strategy is a very important part of our overall strategy. There are many references to industries—I mentioned aerospace—in which the innovation that comes from defence work can have important spillovers for the wider economy. We recognise that across the world that tends to be the case. The defence sector is very important to the strategy, and when some of the sector deals that I will come on to discuss are agreed, the hon. Gentleman will see that in abundance.

Drawing on input across the United Kingdom, we have an approach that is the distilled wisdom of many different contributors. It is a vision to help businesses raise their productivity performance, which is essential if we are to increase the country’s earning power. If we want to pay ourselves better as a nation and a society, we need to earn the way to do that by creating better-paid jobs and putting our country at the forefront of the industries of the future.

Let me introduce the four grand challenges that we have set out. I mentioned that we are uniquely well placed in this country, having leadership in some of the areas of the future, but we should not take that leadership for granted. We should have a deliberate plan and programme to reinforce that success. The four areas we have set out in the strategy, on advice, are artificial intelligence and the data-driven economy; clean growth; the future of mobility; and meeting the needs of an ageing society. Those challenges have been identified on the advice of our leading scientists and technologists, and they will be supported by investment from the new industrial strategy challenge fund and matched by commercial investment.

Let us take each of those briefly. We know that, whether in the Alan Turing Institute or in our companies throughout the UK, we have some of the most innovative thinkers and practitioners in AI and the use of data. We already have that reputation, but we need to keep at the forefront of those developments. A big part of the strategy is to recognise that, historically, as all Members know, we have been better at the “R” of R&D than the “D”. We have had brilliant ideas, but sometimes we have let them slip through our fingers and seen them implemented in industrial processes and investments in manufacturing in other countries. A big part of the challenge is therefore not just discovery but applying those discoveries in UK industry.

GKN: Proposed Takeover by Melrose

Wayne David Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman is aware of the regime under which we operate. I hope that he agrees that it is right, before the shareholders make their final decision, to encourage the company to set out more clearly than it has done its future intentions, not only so that that information is known, but so that, where it makes commitments, were it to succeed, it can be held legally to account for those.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State specifically referred in his statement to the importance of the defence sector. However, the reply from Melrose to him, which I have looked at, states in one short sentence that it

“will execute a deed of undertaking in favour of the Ministry of Defence”.

One legal point of view is that that is a weak legal basis to base that on. Will he or the Secretary of State for Defence come to the Chamber at an appropriate time to give their response to that letter and indicate whether they intend to take action under the Enterprise Act 2002?

[Greg Clark]

When I receive the appropriate advice and make a decision as to whether an intervention is required, I will of course inform the House.