Live Debate: Business and Trade Committee - 7th Jul 2026

Think you know Labour? 🏆 Play the Labour Face Game for your chance to win £150. Limited time only!

Business and Trade Committee

Tuesday 7th July 2026

(began 2 months, 3 weeks ago)

Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded

14:30

Speaker 1

-

Welcome to today's session of the Business and Trade Select Committee. And we're delighted, Peter Kyle, that you've been able to join us for your pre summer hearing. Thank you very much. And congratulations to Amanda Brooks on the new role. And Secretary of State. When you last came before us, you were quite new in post and we asked you a little bit then about what your vision for the department was. I'd like to just repeat that question now.

You've had well over half a year in the role. You've got a lot of runs on the board since then. How has your view changed about the kind of growth strategy that the UK should be pursuing, and your own department's priorities therein?

14:31

Speaker 2

-

Thanks, chair, and thanks to the committee for asking me back again. And also for Amanda as well. Who can I just say has done an outstanding job as interim permanent secretary?And one of the observations I have in the time I've been in this job is just how outstanding the department and its officials are. Uh, this is a quite turbulent period in global, uh. Economic life, uh, and departments like mine are incredibly important to stabilize, uh, in a way that I don't think many of my predecessors have had to do in the past.

So yes, growth remains the priority, the priority. And when you've seen now how that's been focused, the industrial strategy is now a year old, a year old in the coming week, I'd say there's three big areas that have come directly from the industrial strategy just to, to ground us in why the industrial strategy has been such an important part of our economic life these days. The first is that we have used industrial strategy to challenge government and to challenge government, to be bold, to do things differently.

And if you think about the range of responses that government has done for the Industrial strategy, that goes. Right from £9 billion of R&D funding, right the way through to energy support and right the way through to scale up support, to unlock private investment, the. It has adapted to global challenges and has given us a framework to deal with the global challenges. So you'll see the industrial strategy now encompassing critical minerals. Uh, it enabled me to act very assertively in that first week in the job when it came to Incis in the North East, where I mothballed a bioethanol plant because I wanted to keep the capacity for its byproduct CO2.

Uh, again, I mothballed it the week of the, uh, war. With Iran because I needed to keep the resilience into our economy again, all of this done through the functional processes and levers that I've been given through the industrial strategy. And then also because, of course, energy support. And then thirdly, it is delivering the industrial strategy has helped us get to the highest growth rates in the G7, but also unlock, and I can say this for the first time, £380 billion worth of private investment into the industrial sector.

Eight sectors of the economy linked to 155,000 jobs. Alongside that, when it comes to growth, looking at those high growth parts of the economy. So, you know, I'm very, very interested and assertive when it comes to scale up. And this is something that I've been speaking about a great deal more so aligning the British Business Bank for those companies, because we are the start up capital of Europe. We are the unicorn capital of Europe. But too many of those businesses, once they go unicorn, then move to America or elsewhere because of the abundance of capital and the regulatory environment.

That they find themselves in. So by aligning, uh, very, very ambitious programme with the British Business Bank so that we can even take a series of equity stakes and you'll see the risk threshold going higher and higher and higher as we take more equity stakes. That is not about going back to the 70s, as some have reported, where public money was used to, uh, in conservative ways to prevent modernisation. This is actually to harness very rapid innovation and to scale it in order to keep it here, in other words, to embrace disruption, unlike in the 70s where public money was there to stop innovation, getting into industry.

This is about getting it in there and scaling it and keeping it here in the first place. So all of these things are novel. They're all rising to the moment that we're in. Uh, and the speed with which we are now intervening in the economy in order to back growth potential, to stabilise, but also build resilience. And I think resilience would be the word which, uh, has is fundamentally, uh, in my weekly schedule in a way that it wasn't just ten, 11 months ago when I got the job in the first place.

14:35

Speaker 1

-

And you've talked about your ambition to see trillion pound companies grown out of the UK, and you've talked this afternoon about your appetite for the UK to take equity stakes in companies, if need be, to help on that growth journey. I mean, have you basically taken this lesson from President Trump?

14:35

Speaker 2

-

Well, I've only taken one one lesson from President Trump in that he moves very fast and he's not bogged down by convention. Uh, so President Trump has taken equity stakes, uh, and the most free market economy in the world has started taking equity stakes in companies that they see are important to national, uh, to national life, uh, economic security, but also where there is growth potential, but also the swiftness with which he moves. And now I believe that we can be positively disruptive rather than negatively. And I would argue if you look at the dosage programme, for example, there was a lot of negative, uh, disruption there in the work that I did at Dcit and have continued into DBT with, uh, with modernisation and of the way we do business.

And also we, we work as a government itself and transform the relationship between citizens, businesses and the state. Then I would argue that using digital technology has added to a positive improvement, as well as a highly disruptive one in bringing efficiencies in when it comes to the trillion dollar company idea, it's been quite surprising for me that, uh, it's been quite a controversial thing to say, and I've seen some sneering and sniping from parts of the media. Uh, sometimes the kind of pro-business parts of the media.

Sometimes people are saying, well, we're Britain, we don't want our economy can't produce a company of that scale. Well, look at TMC in Taiwan. If they can do it, what does Taiwan got that we haven't got?When you look at Japan has $2 trillion companies. When you look at America, just think about the importance that, yes, for wealth creation, yes, for job creation, but also look at the power it now gives the US when they are negotiating with the world. Uh, and this is a thought exercise.

Imagine if Nvidia was a UK company. Just imagine how empowering that would be for me negotiating on behalf of the UK. When we're doing deals, the diplomacy that the Prime Minister could deploy of having a business of that global global reach and also global ignorability when on the national stage. So yes, this is about wealth creation because it is astonishing amounts of wealth being created. It is also about job creation. Uh, and on quite an extraordinary level. But each of these companies also bakes in the values of the countries from which they are born.

You know, meta and some of the challenges that that and the debate around meta and the way that some of the tech companies operate from the US. These are things which sometimes in some ways are expressions of the countries from which they are born. Now, imagine if we could do this and do it in a British way.

14:38

Speaker 1

-

I think it's an ambition that many on the committee would share, but it's obviously a lot harder if we're suffocating small business at the pace that we are at the moment. We've been forced as a committee to issue a response to the government's response on Small Business report, because we don't think government as a whole, not necessarily your department, government as a whole, was ambitious enough in tackling the cost crunch, which is forcing 38 businesses a day to close right now. So since we produced our small business strategy, we have had hospitality and leisure firms face an average increase of 52% in their business rates.

We've got small business electricity charges, standing charges going up by 40% from April 2026. We've got retail employment that has fallen to its lowest four year quarter average. CBI says that small businesses are now at a tipping point. Why is the Treasury Dienes, DFT, Defra and other departments not going further to alleviate this cash crunch, which is destroying small business, I can.

14:38

Speaker 2

-

Only speak for one of those departments here in front of you today, and that's the Department for Business and Trade. But what I can tell you is that the voice of businesses, including small businesses, hospitality and retail, is heard loud and clear around the table. Now, you all know that when it comes to hospitality. I have have been straight out there, not just because of the constituency that I represent, being, uh, a city, a city which is, uh, for which hospitality and the night time economy is incredibly important, but also knowing how vital it is for the economy overall and out there, meeting people like Tom Kerridge and others to really listen and learn about what the opportunities, as well as.

14:39

Speaker 1

-

The threats. Note that headline employment in hospitality has fallen faster than almost any other sector in the economy right now. When we talk to small business, business rates, energy costs, high street crime, you know, these are issues that are coming up time and time again. You're moving on late payment, not as far as we would like. That's good. You're moving on procurement, but your own department is behind on that. We'll come back on that in a second.

You know, right the way across the waterfront for small business, there is a cost crunch. And so the question is, what more can you do in particular with Treasury on business rates and in particular with Mr. Miliband on energy costs to actually try and create a competitive business environment in this country?

14:40

Speaker 2

-

Okay. Let me just run through a few things. And the first one is the foundational one, the foundational, uh. Factor that every business, large and small needs, but particularly those that are dealing with on the high street, they need customers with cash in their pockets is economic growth. So that's why doubling down on overall economic growth for the country has been so incredibly important on some of the specifics. You know, we have for all pubs got 15% rates relief on top of the support that was already announced in the last budget.

And those bills have been frozen by two years. So we are recognising some of the things that are needed. Is it enough?Well, hang on, let me just just just just get to the thought at the end of the thought exercise here that you sent me, which is a challenging one, and I want to rise to the challenge and be also upfront and honest about more that needs to be done. A third of those businesses in hospitality will have seen rates fall.

And then when it comes to energy costs, these are things that we are trying to do to intervene assertively in parts of the economy where there is foundational input into the economy. So yes, the supercharger is there for those high energy intensive sectors. Bics is now been extended from 7000 to 10,000 plus manufacturing businesses. You know, these are the sorts of businesses that are getting growth into the economy and will have an impact in supply chains right the way down, deep into communities. Now, the small business, the small business plan, uh, 80% of it is on track, 50% of it has already been delivered.

And that's just in one year. So we can't say that we're resting on our laurels when it comes to.

14:42

Speaker 1

-

Getting 38 small businesses going out of business every day. That's all I'm saying.

14:42

Speaker 2

-

But when it comes to the number of pubs that have been going under one of these small businesses, we have slowed that place, that that pace. Even though I'm not saying that slowing the pace is where we need to get to, because we need to stop the pace.

14:42

Speaker 1

-

But you must be you must be frustrated that government collectively has not yet done enough to ameliorate the cash crunch. Small businesses facing.

14:42

Speaker 2

-

I am frustrated that hospitality. There are other sectors that have specific challenges that they face. I am frustrated that hospitality finds itself in a position where there are specific challenges that they face. Day you will turn on the news in the morning and you will hear another sector, whether it be in defence, whether it be in universities, which is. And student fees. Every day there will be a sector because of the inheritance that we had and the fact that we had ten years with no growth in the economy and a lack of investment into the from private capital, into the economy, that there is a backlog and there are an enormous set of challenges right across the board.

We have been in government less than two years, and already you see us laying the foundations for which we get the economic growth, but also the kinds of interventions that we can make on the back of getting that growth. And that's why we can do the supercharger, we can do Bics, which is why we can do some of the schemes to relieve business rates for a third of hospitality. We are trying to do so in a way that recognises that a lot of different sectors. So just for example, in the last month we've done a package for chemicals.

Chemicals, very important foundational sector, important to resilience, but also very important to communities in parts of the country that we need to get investment into. And secondly, in ceramics, there has never been a support package for ceramics in our country. And when I see the stress that that particular sector is under, very hard, when you look at a spreadsheet or you look at the way that we normally make decisions on these things to justify the kind of package I put together. But when you then put that together as you've asked me to do, and the challenge you've set me, and you then link it to DWP communities, other parts of government, and you see that if I didn't step in, the impact it would have in other government departments, I think would be intolerable, and I am not going to allow it to happen to communities like Stoke on Trent.

What the previous governments have done to parts of the North East and the East Midlands and and other parts of the country.

14:44

Speaker 1

-

Let's just push on a couple of aspects of that, starting with business rates. Um. Joshua Reynolds, thank you, chair.

14:44

Speaker 3

-

Secretary of State, on page 31 of the Labour Party manifesto in 2024, it promised that Labour will replace the business rate system. When are you planning on doing that?

14:44

Speaker 2

-

As you know, that's an HMT decision. But what we have done is reform them and lifted a third of a third of hospitality companies outside of business rates and therefore and also now, uh, introduced on top of that 15% business rates relief. These are the first steps we've also held now that that is now frozen for two years into the future. This gives us the footprint to think about where we go next. And as I said, these are things that are led by the Chancellor.

But let me just tell you loud and clear, the voice of this sector is heard very sharply in these discussions, because the budget process is an opaque one, but it's one that myself and my officials, we really do harness the views, but also we get the facts about what is happening deep into the economy, and we make sure that their voice is heard. So in the future, as further reforms to business rates is undertaken, the voice of that particular sector will be heard loud and clear.

14:45

Speaker 3

-

So acknowledging that business rates don't fall directly under you. But again, it's businesses that pay that and that is directly in your area. The manifesto also said that the changes Labour would bring about to business rates would raise the same revenue, but in a fairer way. So when the FSB tell us that small businesses and retail, hospitality and leisure face an average 52% increase to their business rates bills, do you think that is raising the same revenue but in a fairer way?

14:45

Speaker 2

-

Amanda, do you want.

14:46

Speaker 1

-

14:46

Speaker 4

-

I just add some detail on the action that's been taken on business rates that Treasury colleagues.

14:46

Speaker 1

-

We've got we've got the detail. Don't worry. I think the key thing is if you've got half I mean, these are the government statements half saying there's no change, a quarter saying that bills are going down. That still means a quarter of going up. And I guess Mr. Reynolds is underlining the point that, you know, many of those businesses are on the high street, but.

14:46

Speaker 2

-

I've not I've not read the report from the IFS or seen how that's been calculated or how that ties in with where the Treasury figures are. But I'm very happy to review that report myself and look at it and see where it stands. With the overall direction of travel with business rates.

14:46

Speaker 3

-

When you speak to small businesses in your constituency and others, do they tell you that they think business rates are getting easier for them and are going down, or are they telling you that their rates are going through the roof?Which is.

14:47

Speaker 2

-

What I'm going to.

14:47

Speaker 3

-

14:47

Speaker 2

-

Sharply in two ways. Firstly, I have never spoken to any business that is happy with the taxation levels that they have and wouldn't like to see it going down. Secondly, I have spoken to businesses I, as I said, I have a very thriving hospitality night time economy in in Hove and there was one weekend when I walked right the way down the high Street and went into every one I could to see if I could speak to the managers to see see what they wanted to say to me.

There are those who have experienced the reduction in rates. I'm not asking for. Thanks for it, because also they've seen bills go up. They've seen electricity bills going up. And I am the first to acknowledge that that when we give rights to workers, which is the right thing to do, it is also does put costs into the system in some way or another. So I'm not here to say that everything is great. We are trying to balance taking everyone forward in a community, including those people who work in these these businesses, as well as people who run them, and those never forget who found them and what it takes to actually found and grow a business, whether it is a small community coffee shop or whether it is the company that will ultimately become our first trillion dollar company.

14:48

Speaker 3

-

I don't think anyone would disagree that bringing everyone forward is a great aim to have. But when you balance that off, the fact that hospitality has lost 100,000 jobs in the last 1218 months or so, and the FSB are stating very clearly how, on the back of the rising business rates that they're facing and they're paying. You've also got the energy bills, you've got spiralling employment cost changes, statutory sick pay, all in a two month period. British businesses resilience Secretary of state. But it can't deal with hammer blow after blow after blow constantly.

So when you're losing 100 000 jobs in hospitality, how are you taking the hospitality industry with you?

14:48

Speaker 2

-

Owing as much as we possibly can. Yes, we've got the small business plan, but we also have the the SME team in my department has been out on safari. They have been out to towns right around the country having sessions with small businesses in deep, deep into communities so that my officials can also be as connected to the front line of this sector as possible. And every month they are going out and doing these safaris. The last one that they did was in Barnsley, so that they can hear exactly what businesses are saying.

So myself, my officials, you know, we are out there and being as connected as we possibly can and we're doing a lot of different interventions. So the high street incubator, for example, pride in place, for example, all of these, the late payment legislation, which the FSB is celebrating, will unlock £11 billion worth of pent up capital into small businesses. So these are the sorts of interventions that will make a real difference, not just to get cash where it needs to be, which is into businesses, but also to make sure that the process of doing business is more profitable and is easier.

14:49

Speaker 1

-

Would you accept that the reform to date doesn't yet quite meet the test of the manifesto, which was, to quote, replace the business rate system, unquote.

14:49

Speaker 2

-

I would say that we're two years into a five year parliament, and we're taking steps down that road, but we're not at the destination yet.

14:49

Speaker 1

-

Thank you. Antonia.

14:50

Speaker 5

-

Sticking with business rates and moving to manufacturing, do you think it's fair that if manufacturing business invests in net zero adaptations, that they they then see their business rates bills go up?That is a major barrier to net to manufacturing businesses investing in transition technology.

14:50

Speaker 2

-

So these are things that are balanced by by government because in the transition to zero, if you're manufacturing, for example, if you're an automotive manufacturer, we will have drive 35, we'll have a £4 billion fund to help with that transition. So yes, there will be parts of government where they will because of the increased profitability that will go with the transition or the increased investment and output that we want to come with that, that that it will have other implications for tax. But when it comes to the overall support that government is offering on a range of different areas of manufacturing and engineering for the transition to net zero, government is doing being a highly assertive partner.

14:51

Speaker 5

-

Outside of what you've mentioned, drive 35. And obviously, in the absence of the Industrial Energy Transformation Fund, what are the schemes that are available to support the capital costs of transitioning to net zero in manufacturing?

14:51

Speaker 2

-

Well, these are very important ones when it comes to automotive. We have drive 35 but also with with energy support. So we also have the supercharger. We have Bics.

14:51

Speaker 5

-

14:51

Speaker 2

-

Cost, you know, so I mean, we also have it's not just my department. You'll find that the main department for climate change is obviously Disney's. And they will have a whole range of other interventions as well into different sectors. So when it is specific climate investment into transition, you know, most of those programmes are being led out of Disney's. But my department, when it comes to specific ones that I hold the the responsibility for, then of course, those are the schemes that I've already outlined.

14:52

Speaker 1

-

I'm going to loop back on to energy costs in a minute, but I just want to cover off high streets with Dan Aldridge.

14:52

Speaker 6

-

Thank you, Secretary of State. Over the past six months. Um, well, six months have passed since the high Street strategy was announced. Um and witnesses to to this committee have highlighted persistent barriers to regeneration, including fragmented ownership of vacant properties, poor public realm, limited community access to assets and a lack of local authority capacity to bring empty premises back into productive use. And I've noticed that very clearly in my constituency of Weston super Mare, where that capacity in the local authority just means we take resource from somewhere else that is equally as important.

So, um, can you give the committee reassurance that we will see this high street strategy soon?And can you give an outline on the timescale for you?

14:53

Speaker 2

-

You will see it later this year. I'm working very, very closely with HCLG on it. Uh, there's a whole range of different areas that we've. I accept that many of the issues that you've already raised in this session are political. And because you mentioned crime earlier on, and I I've been working very closely with the Home Office or certainly giving voice to some of the needs of businesses. When we came in. Theft, and shoplifting. Shoplifting had basically been decriminalised.

And getting a grip back on that is one of the first priorities that people were telling me. From the retail side, needed to be got a grip on, as well as all of the other issues. So there is there is a the. Challenges being faced in the front line of the economy in the communities at the minute are multifaceted. Therefore, the response of government has got to be similarly multifaceted. So in all of these areas, we are working quite closely together on it, and the Home Office accepts there the need to get a grip on it for not just the safety of communities, which is primary, but also the economic wellbeing and prosperity of communities as well.

But the report that you refer to, I'm working quite closely with Mhclg and it will be out later this year.

14:54

Speaker 6

-

Yeah, I mean, it's encouraging to hear that there is that cross cross-departmental working. I think one of the things that I would hope that we would be able to see to, to is some of these good, excellent, innovative innovations that we have seen already trailed like the property holding vehicle, the High Street Innovation Squad. Some of that could maybe be pushed out earlier to support those, um, constituencies like mine that are struggling. So, um, in the mission to get things, get the best report possible, can we not gatekeep good stuff that will save some of our high streets sooner rather than later.

14:54

Speaker 2

-

Look, you raise a really important point, and I can tell you in my experience now of less than two years, but in two departments, I've never held on to a to a policy that I thought would have a tangible. Impact on a community or on our country's economic wellbeing. I can look forward.

14:55

Speaker 6

-

To a high street innovation squad in Weston super Mare soon.

14:55

Speaker 2

-

But what I will, what I. What I will say to you is you're being such a brilliant advocate. Advocate for Weston super Mare is that. You know, if there are particular issues, singular issues which you think are impacting the economy in your area or economic wellbeing, security in your area, or the potential for growth for which I could have any agency over it, then I know that you batter me over the phone fairly often anyway, but you should batter me some more over those singular issues because we do have a range of different tools at our disposal, and I think most of the committee will have been in touch with me at one point or another over one issue or another.

And we I think you will find us being quite an entrepreneurial and reflexive department when it comes to sort of, you know, getting getting.

14:55

Speaker 1

-

14:55

Speaker 4

-

Have a go on this one. We do, for example, have really flexible tools like the Growth mission Fund that enables us to look at very specific cases. Secretary of state has already mentioned pride in place and the opportunity that that has for a number of different communities. I know it's a large number of communities, and I'm afraid, I don't know, off the top.

14:56

Speaker 6

-

We've got the both of those, and it's been fantastic. I think the the issue for us is that the, the, the legislative tool is there around taking, taking control back of those high street, um, stores that rogue landlords are not using. But the problem is the resource within local authorities to be able to do anything about it. And that is where the problem is. So the policy is fine. It's the implementation. And I think we're seeing that up and down the country.

14:56

Speaker 1

-

Okay.

14:57

Speaker 7

-

Thank you chair. Um, energy is the issue that comes up time and again. We travel the country on the safari, as you.

14:57

Speaker 2

-

14:57

Speaker 7

-

And it comes up constantly. And it's a huge problem. And, you know, in my constituency of Dumfries, uh, energy costs are something like four times what they would be in Dumfries, in Virginia. I know energy costs are not directly in your, uh, in your wheelhouse, but because the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme has been expanded to 10,000. But that's, that's not nearly enough, is it?

14:57

Speaker 2

-

No. We want our entire energy costs to come down.

14:58

Speaker 1

-

So like, how are we going to do that?So you've accelerated the decoupling from gas. Good start. But we've still got policy costs which are rising as far as the eye can see on bills, rather than shifting it on to the taxpayer.

14:58

Speaker 2

-

Well we have I mean don't don't forget earlier in this year ahead of the Iran war situation, we had started to lower bills and lower bills by up to £150 by shifting some of the burdens that were put on, on regulatory and and other.

14:58

Speaker 1

-

We're still looking at a cost curve that is going through the roof.

14:58

Speaker 2

-

14:58

Speaker 7

-

Domestic bills as well, isn't it?

14:58

Speaker 2

-

No, it's domestic bills and of course. But but what I'm saying, but already we're sort of drifting out of debt held policies here and into areas which are fully owned by Disney's. But we have to do everything we can do to lower the cost of energy for our country. We are uncompetitive. It is extraordinary that we have been able to incentivise the amount of inward investment into our country, £380 billion and the Is eight sectors. Because of the previous uncompetitive nature of the country, we've done it by offering incentives where we can, in a targeted way.

The Chancellor has been very, very clear that in the absence in just two years, to be able to completely transform the way that energy is generated, distributed and consumed in our country, that we're going to be able to lower the costs overall to the degree that it is done in America and parts of Europe. But we can, in a targeted way for business in the high energy intensive areas, but also in manufacturing areas where I believe there is high growth need and potential there. We can get it down to almost the EU average, which makes us much more desirable for unlocking the investment into it.

On the back of that investment, we as a country can then start investing into.

14:59

Speaker 1

-

The transition, crystallize this. So so the ambition is to get UK business electricity costs down to the EU average.

15:00

Speaker 2

-

We have already in the in the in the Bix area. So through Bix and the.

15:00

Speaker 1

-

10,000 businesses.

15:00

Speaker 2

-

15:00

Speaker 1

-

Plus 2 million in this country completely.

15:00

Speaker 2

-

And Mr. Chairman, I am not here to say that everything is perfect. You know, we want to get the energy costs down for every consumer and every business and get it down in a sustainable way, in a universal way, and in a way which is secure into the future. We're having to do it from having come into government at a point at which the the infrastructure for energy generation and distribution simply wasn't conducive to doing it. So we have to get through the transition to a low carbon energy supply.

So we have domestic supply, which is resilient and appropriate for the nation that we are. We are investing in nuclear, both large nuclear plants, but also small modular reactors. We're investing in offshore wind, onshore wind.

15:01

Speaker 1

-

And solar businesses. And I'll come back to you, Mr. Cooper. The challenge for many businesses, though, is that that all sounds like in the long run and in the long run, they're all bust because they're just not going to be able to survive the power costs, which they face until those new systems come online. But, Mr. Cooper, I interrupted you.

15:01

Speaker 7

-

Yeah, I mean, that's the point, isn't it?Here is that this is all gray. It's jam tomorrow, but the businesses aren't going to be there. We're uncompetitive now. These businesses are going to the wall now. And domestic energy prices. Are a completely different ballgame. Energy use in industry is much, much higher. But these bills are enormous.

15:02

Speaker 2

-

I'm trying to phrase this in a way that. You can't change the fundamentals of our. The way our nation. For a country of 73 million people and all the businesses and the advanced manufacturing and high energy intensive sectors that we have, the energy needs in 18 months, I understand the frustration you have. Believe me, what the frustration I have, we are doing so as rapidly as we can in order to start, we must start targeting support as wisely as we can to support the businesses that we know will be under greatest stress, but also those that have the greatest growth potential, because it is only through economic growth that we can muster the amount of sustainable investment to start doing the big ticket schemes that are going to ultimately get us to where we need to be in this.

15:02

Speaker 1

-

How many good ideas, as Dean has put to you, about how to reduce business energy costs?

15:03

Speaker 2

-

Actually, uh, fairness to Danes and to the Secretary of State, we work closely together on these issues. You know, there are some areas where, because of the nature of our respective, uh, briefs that we. We will come up and we'll have to resolve some differences. But very often we work in a highly collaborative way. The secretary of state of Disney's and dozens itself, they don't glory in the fact that we have high energy costs. But look, you can go right back.

And I have ringing in my ears that that quote from Nick Clegg in 2010 or 2011, uh, where he said that there's no point commissioning new nuclear reactors because they won't come on stream until 2024. This is the legacy that we're living with. And I accept that some of these projects, including, uh, you know, Hinkley Point C, will produce 7% of our energy needs. You know, it's going to take it's going to take 15, 20 years to get these projects even close to the point at which you can start to, to provide the resilience.

15:03

Speaker 1

-

And energy. I realize we're looking through a glass darkly when we come to the rest of this Parliament, but are there sort of particular ideas which you will be pressing the new Prime Minister to pursue in order to bring down business energy costs faster, because we're not going to fulfil his ambitions to reindustrialize the country unless we get this fixed.

15:04

Speaker 2

-

I'll answer the question this way that with the new Prime Minister, there are things that we can do that would be highly growth orientated, that will deliver the kind of fairness across our economy that both he and I aspire to, that we can do. Those are the sorts of conversations that I'll be having, but ultimately we live with finite resources, and it's the decision of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister as to how they allocate those finite resources.

15:04

Speaker 1

-

What's top of that list then?

15:04

Speaker 2

-

I'm not going to go into those things because tempting though you are, I won't negotiate with with the Treasury or number ten in public. But you can rest assured that the analysis.

15:04

Speaker 1

-

We're here when you need.

15:04

Speaker 2

-

Us. I appreciate it.

15:04

Speaker 1

-

15:05

Speaker 5

-

Thank you very much. So the other 260,000 manufacturing businesses who aren't going to be supported through Bix, what should they do?There is no industrial energy transformation fund, as we've discussed. If they invest themselves and use the tax breaks that are available and full expensing that is available in order to bring down their energy costs by putting solar panels on their building, they'll be charged higher business rates and won't see a saving. What should those businesses do with high energy costs?And when are you going to advocate for more businesses in manufacturing to be included in a scheme that takes the policy costs off their bills?

15:05

Speaker 2

-

So what you've seen is, as us, we're having to target and having to prioritise. So you will know because of the conversations we've had and also from the scrutiny that you provided, our schemes that we are targeting the sectors which have the highest growth potential, but also those that are that have the highest usage of energy as part of their overall costs of doing business. Now, not every one of those businesses that you just gave the number for 280 odd thousand. Not all of them will have energy as their as a predominant or high part of doing business in the first place and creating the products that they sell.

So we are focusing on those that do have a very high percentage of costs that relate to energy, and they vary from business to business. So I do not accept, and I say this as somebody who has spent quite a lot of time already today showing understanding and empathy with the challenges that manufacturing has with the cost of business in this country, but not all of them. And I do not accept that all of them will be facing financial distress, because actually, energy is not the highest part of doing business or even close to it.

So we are trying to figure out where to get support to where it's needed until we can lower the overall cost of energy in this country, which we need to do.

15:06

Speaker 5

-

But some of the boundaries for the schemes that you have in place don't make sense. So, for example, if you're a foundry in my constituency and you melt steel to produce products, you will be helped by Bics. But if you melt aluminium, you won't. Aluminium is one of the metals that is part of our transition that we expect to make lightweight engine components for the future of our automotive business, but they are not being helped. You can see why for many manufacturing businesses, and I accept your point, that some won't have high energy costs, but the vast majority do.

They do not understand where the boundaries have been drawn, why some are in and some aren't, and why the scheme is so small.

15:06

Speaker 1

-

So as we go through this, you've got to be in the right sector. You've then got to pass an electricity intensity test. You've then got to have products in the eligible H.S. code, and then you've got to pass a site level test as well. I mean, you'll understand how most manufacturers can't make head nor tail of this.

15:07

Speaker 2

-

Which is why we've consulted so extensively on this. We we have undertaken a hugely detailed consultation with business. You know, when I came into this job ten, 11 months ago, in the first few days I was announcing the consultation for Bics and encouraging businesses to take part. And that that that consultation has been highly extensive. Now, in the coming months, we're going to legislate for Bics, and we're going to make sure that the rollout is. Completed in a way that is as cooperative with business as possible, as co-designed with business as possible.

We have socialised with business. The challenge that we're facing. We have finite resources that I can spend on a project like Bics. So when I've looked at the priorities that they have told me they have and the challenges that they have in the air, you'll notice that earlier, just a couple of months back, I announced that those qualifying businesses for Bics will then will then qualify for a one off payment at the start of the scheme, which will compensate them for the costs that they would have had had skipped Bixby running for this year as well.

This has come out of the consultation that we've had with business to try and tackle it. Now. They understand that the the finite nature of what we're trying to do and the need to to focus, and we have tried to engage as much as we possibly can to get it right, whilst saying we can't help every single business.

15:08

Speaker 1

-

Okay. Sorry. Can I just bring you Mr. Menon?Thank you.

15:08

Speaker 4

-

So sorry. Just to say, we are anticipating finalising the design of the big scheme imminently. And indeed then at that point, there will be further guidance published for businesses to help them. Work out how to access and where their eligibility. So understand those boundaries that you're describing more clearly. But to do that, we need to be able to finalise the design, which, as the Secretary of State has just said, we are in the midst of doing, given all the consultation that has been underway.

15:09

Speaker 5

-

Aluminium, you'll you'll find an answer for us on aluminium.

15:09

Speaker 4

-

15:09

Speaker 5

-

15:09

Speaker 1

-

Mr. Maynard. We recognize.

15:10

Speaker 8

-

And accept that this has cross-departmental. And we also acknowledge what you've done on renewable obligations in terms of moving some of that off. We also all hear that business is drowning under this electricity cost. So what about going further and moving more of those levies off, working with business, working with the Treasury to do that, because it seems like we're kind of slightly kind of moving deckchairs around the Titanic at the moment. And, you know, you do have the levers of power to do this.

So how serious is the government about making that step?

15:10

Speaker 1

-

You might tell us that this is a decision for the new prime Minister, but.

15:10

Speaker 2

-

No, I'm trying. I'm trying my absolute best not to not to deflect on on any of these and also to be really honest about what it's like doing my job. Of course, if I could, if I could lower energy costs for every every manufacturing business, I would do it in a heartbeat. that way. But we well, I mean. I, I've not. Had been able to had permission to think about what I would, what it would look like if I was to lower energy costs for everyone because I'm dealing with finite resources.

So that is the world that all of us are living in at this moment in time. But what I can tell you is that I've never had a meeting with colleagues, a cabinet, colleagues that don't accept and share the anxiety that we feel and the urgency we feel with lowering costs is in as meaningful a way as possible. And as I go forward in these conversations with all the cabinet colleagues, including the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and whoever of us is in these jobs from three weeks onwards, that the that urgency to do so will have a very powerful voice, and I will always go as far as I possibly, possibly can.

15:11

Speaker 8

-

Turning around. Do you do you believe that if we were to move some of those levies, more of those levies over to general taxation, that is better for our economy and better for our country?

15:11

Speaker 2

-

Those are decisions the Chancellor must make. And also, uh, you need to acknowledge the, the, the subsequent challenges that are posed from doing so. So, uh, I'm going to advocate for lowering costs in any way that I possibly can. But. There is always a quid pro quo in these in these sorts of trade offs. And someone will always be paying unless we get a growing economy. 5.5% of additional growth in our economy means £50 billion raised without any other changes of any kind of mechanism at all in terms of taxation in the Treasury.

So everything comes back to that for me, because until we get there, we are talking about taking something to give something or borrow more for, which will drive the cost of borrowing up. And therefore we all pay more. So we have to accept that's the world that we're living in.

15:12

Speaker 4

-

But to be clear, if I can add, the Bic's funding model is the one you have just described. It is savings in the energy system, plus exchequer funding.

15:12

Speaker 8

-

For the 10,000.

15:13

Speaker 1

-

15:13

Speaker 3

-

Thank you. Chair. Secretary of state in 2324 the government spent about £341 billion on procurement. That's about the same size as the GDP of Hong Kong. On page 36 of the Labour Party manifesto, it says that for SMEs, you will reform procurement rules to give them greater access to government contracts. How's that going?

15:13

Speaker 2

-

It's going well. I love the fact that you've read the manifesto so well in front of me. Will you never leave home without it?

15:14

Speaker 1

-

I had reading on this committee.

15:14

Speaker 2

-

So, uh, actually we have. We have made progress because I, in both of the jobs I've had in de cit and in this job, this has become a priority for me. We are spending more and more money essentially on procurement. You've given the figures. We must make sure that we in, in an appropriate way, spend as much as we can of it in Britain, but also we break open and get away from this, this vise like grip that the culture of procurement has got on the companies who have the resources to bid for these contracts and have a very long standing relationship with government.

Already. We must, if we are going to use procurement to, uh, as a tool. For growth in the country and harnessing the very best of British innovation. Unlock pathways into procurement for businesses that don't have a current track record that are also scaling. So therefore won't have the balance sheet going back three, four, five years. That would reassure some and find a way to get those into it. Now, I've got lots of ideas on this sort of thing, and if I speak in very high terms and this is not, uh, speaking in terms.

Of what policy will be delivered, but I am very aware that if you take the investment, the British Business Bank is making in equity stakes in scale up companies. So Kraken and Wave and, uh, Oxford quantum circuits, uh, these sorts of companies. Imagine the due diligence that goes into, uh, that kind of transaction. Imagine the confidence that the independent investment body of British Business Bank, plus the British Business Bank, plus the criteria that I have signed off as secretary of State leads to that kind of investment.

Now, I don't see why that shouldn't also be some kind of, uh, fast track route into procurement systems, because if we are going to support a company like wave, which has gone from 300 to 1500 staff in five years and is now valued at 11 billion and was started and founded 6 or 7 years ago here by Alex Kendall. Then, uh, why we wouldn't weigh in behind them with the power of procurement and allow them to help solve some of the challenges that we face as a government. Well, I can't answer that question, and I'm pushing very hard.

We have the Procurement Act. We've undertaken a series of different reforms. The government, the government department that holds this project is the Cabinet Office. So it's not entirely mine. But when it comes to big opportunities such as the Defence Investment Plan, uh, the reforms that the Cabinet Office is undertaking and other high spending departments such as the Department of Health. Uh, I can assure you that the voice of business, but also those disruptive businesses that are struggling have, uh, are there at the top table.

15:16

Speaker 3

-

So you're right when you say that Cabinet Office really leads on this. And the chief commercial officer for the government sits within the Cabinet Office. Do you know what your department's targets are for SMEs?Procurement?What percentage?

15:17

Speaker 4

-

I don't off the top of my head, I do know the overall targets for SMEs spent by government is I do know the overall targets for SM spent by government is 7.4 billion, and that every department needs to have a plan towards that and that we obviously will be working through our plan, including looking at whether the lot size is right, to ensure that, us small businesses are better able to access that. But I'm afraid I don't have the info.

15:17

Speaker 3

-

Well, the last thing that I've got for your department in 2425 was 18%. And the data that I have shows that that wasn't met. And your department is still not hitting its own target for the amount of SME procurement. And those targets range throughout government, with your department having a 40% target and according to the latest data, I've got only achieving 12% of that. And your department falling significantly behind. So if you're championing this, if you're pushing it, why is your department not meeting the target that your own department set?

15:17

Speaker 2

-

All I can assure you is that we are pushing as fast as we can. I'm glad that.

15:17

Speaker 3

-

You're pushing as fast as you can. Why are you not hitting your target?

15:18

Speaker 2

-

Because turning. Because firstly, procurements have cycles. So a lot of procurement contracts that we will have as a department actually, when you're procuring services will have been procured by the previous government because these contracts are 3 to 5 years. Very often there's very few.

15:18

Speaker 3

-

Set yourself a target that was impossible to hit. No, what I'm saying.

15:18

Speaker 2

-

No, no, no, we will hit it. We will hit it. But what I'm saying is that these are the sorts of things you can't hit overnight. If you're talking about the renewing of existing contracts. Now, I will tell you also that we've we are using the powers that have come in with the Procurement Act to to the maximum. These are things that Amanda, myself and my teams have spoken about in some detail, but some of the challenges we face are not actually the powers that we now have.

It's actually the culture of procurement itself. And these are things that we that we as a department, of course, have to live up to. And how do I feel uncomfortable when I hear those stats?Of course I do. Of course I do. I want us to be an outlier in a positive way on these things. But when I commission work for my department on areas like this, sometimes they come back and I'll I'll say, I'm sorry, that's just not good enough.

I don't accept the reason we need to double down on it. There are other areas where there's quite, quite.

15:20

Speaker 1

-

£16.5 million off target right now. So I mean, what's a reasonable time frame for closing that gap?

15:20

Speaker 2

-

Well, it was a manifesto commitment. So in this in this parliament.

15:20

Speaker 1

-

It's supposed to be a three year target, not a five year target.

15:20

Speaker 2

-

Well, I can all I can say is that I've come into office and and I these are conversations that I'm leading on quite assertively.

15:20

Speaker 1

-

And when you sort of sit down with them dienes, then are you going to talk to them about their targets because they're 23% off target and given their target is £196 million?Actually, that could make quite a lot of difference to quite a lot of firms. If they hit that target, pulled their socks up.

15:21

Speaker 2

-

This goes right across government. It goes right across government, and it is an historic challenge that we are rising to. The reason why I'm pushing so hard at the minute is we have a huge opportunity, because of the nature of dual use technology that's coming through, because of the nature of innovation that's being scaled in our country right now, whether it's drones, whether it is space technology, which is being pioneered up there in the Glasgow cluster, whether it's quantum, whether it is the resurgence that we are seeing in manufacturing in this country, because I've been speaking about Reindustrialisation since getting into this job and determined to do so, starting with autos and with advanced manufacturing.

Then it does pose lots of opportunities for the government to procure in a different way. It is hard for government to do these things because of the risk tolerance that people will. Understandably have when spending public money. But we have to crack it because actually there are two risks. There are risks. We play safe with procurement and we do bog standard services. But there is also the risk we miss out on the best of British innovation and the best opportunity we have for a government that is putting.

But putting the public's money where our mouths are when it comes to backing British businesses. And I think the second is the highest risk. And that's the risk that I won't I won't take.

15:22

Speaker 1

-

Thank you, Mr. Reynolds, briefly.

15:22

Speaker 3

-

Thank you chair. Um, so, Secretary, you said that these things don't happen overnight, which I think we all accept. The reality is government's been in power for two years now rather than overnight. And people would like to see more movement on this. So we've already commented that your department's 5% behind its target UK export Finance is 10% behind its target. But there are there is one government department that is achieved its target and surpassed it with the Department for education.

So if Bridget Phillipson can do that, why can't you or any other government department?

15:23

Speaker 2

-

I'm. I can't answer that question for the obvious reason. I'm not sure what the nature of of Department of Education's procurement is. What the difference is, is from the services and the products that they procure and also the scale that they procure. Uh, how devolved.

15:23

Speaker 3

-

The total spending in Department for education is, is £231 million. Or it looks as if your department's target is £43 million.

15:23

Speaker 2

-

So I don't know the nature of the, the procurement. So look, I mean, I will be speaking to Bridget to see if that was if that was a strategic, uh, plan and, and management that led to that. And I'll be learning from it. Okay. I want to I want to get there.

15:24

Speaker 1

-

Thank you. Let's just cover off late payment.

15:24

Speaker 6

-

Secretary of state. So the UK has proposed late payment legislation. As it stands, the most progressive and stringent in the G7. So something to be really positive about for our small businesses. But I'm aware that late payments worsened again in May. So it underlines the need to protect our small businesses. I'm just keen to get reassurance from yourself that you won't allow for legislation to be watered down, um, and would encourage all big businesses to do the right thing and not wait for legislation and end this practice of what, uh, what zero the company have kind of, uh, have labeled unapproved debt.

So really some reassurance from yourself about, about that would be really helpful.

15:25

Speaker 2

-

I can give reassurance on that. Uh, when I launched the late payments, legislation in front of whooping, uh, small businesses who have been calling for this for so long, I reassured them that it will be implemented as rapidly as possible, that there will be no watering down, but also that nothing should be stopping businesses. I also caveated in the same speech that the majority of large businesses, they do take their supply chains incredibly seriously. They are proud of the relationship that they have and with them and their supply chains, and they do pay on time.

But for those who don't, then the clock is ticking. Look, the key thing here is because when we were talking about, it's very easy to get a scheme that looks good on paper and you can justify to Parliament, but what you want and what I want is one that sort of assertive and got teeth. The thing about the late Payments Commissioner is that she can launch investigations, she can judge and she can enforce and she can, uh. Make fines. And they are really considerable fines.

She can do all of those things. Whereas some of the things that I've looked at as other models are things where, you know, recommendations are made, investigations take forever. And ends up going to court in order to be resolved. Well, you know, we've dealt with all of that and I'll be looking really clearly and closely at how far and fast she uses the powers she has, because I think if we can get out of the traps in a robust way, then the culture change.

It would drive, I think would be really quite profound.

15:26

Speaker 1

-

Okay, I'm going to turn to industrial strategy now, if that's okay. Just because time is moving on. So, um, just before I ask Charlie Reynolds to come in, why was the Industrial Strategy Council not put on a statutory basis?When we talk to Claire Barclay, she said that was one of the big reasons that she signed up for the gig. Uh, we wanted, I think in the manifesto, we expressed an ambition to ensure that this was an important part of our statecraft, and yet still no legislation for it in the King's Speech.

Why is that?

15:27

Speaker 2

-

I've not been able to find a legislative vehicle for it yet, but I will do as soon as I can.

15:27

Speaker 1

-

Okay?Charlie Maynard.

15:27

Speaker 8

-

Talking British Steel. So. So just as I understand it and correct me if I'm wrong. So I think working capital from April last year to May this year, £484 million in, um, I think that's going to increase this year. And, and as per the supplementary estimates that are coming out next February, I think it's going to increase again there as well. Um, we don't know how much compensation is going to need to be paid to. That's another unknown cost.

Operationally. We've got um, the company missed its steel production levels every week between April 25th and January 26th. And this is a particular problem for steel fabricators. So we've got a lot of money going into this business from the state. Um that's maybe 1.5 billion over three years. Maybe maybe more. We've got the operations sub par. You've just put tariffs in place, which makes it even harder for the fabricators. Where are you looking to take this company in terms of ownership, in terms of investment, in terms of workforce and in terms of profitability profitability.

15:28

Speaker 2

-

Okay. Your amazing question, uh, illustrates just how knotty and complicated steel is in this country. And you can imagine how much of my time and thought time and weekend time is spent trying to find a way through all of this, because the interactions of the different forces. So to answer the question very directly, uh, the steel bill is going through. It's now in committee in the House of Lords. I'm expecting it to go through imminently. If the public interest test is met, then it is likely that I will use those to bring British Steel into public ownership.

Now, at that point, it is imperative that we invest and stabilise that company. That is my priority, and I want to make sure that from there on, I get the people in place that can then take that company forward and.

15:29

Speaker 8

-

Sorry, how does this company compete in in its environment to serve the UK market?Well, while being actually not being a drain on the taxpayer and becoming fully funded. And are you looking to hold it forever?Are you looking to sell it?

15:30

Speaker 2

-

It's my belief that British Steel can and will become, uh, a sustainable. Operation. Uh, as I said, the key to that is getting the right people in place and getting us to that point. And we are we still have a few steps to go before, before taking that. Uh, it is my view and it is the view of my department that those conditions can be created for British Steel. And when you see the steel strategy that I launched earlier this year, you will see that I am investing in the sector up to £2.5 billion.

I am modernising the sector by making funding available for the transition to electric Arc. But I'm also protecting the sector by use of measures where appropriate. So these are very complicated forces. But if I didn't believe that it was possible to save British Steel and put it onto a secure footing, then things would have been different.

15:31

Speaker 8

-

Secure footing behind large tariff barriers. Or you, you you are confident in three years it's going to be back in back in open market environment and making money. Or how long do you think it needs to be back in an open market environment, not behind tariff barriers and making money?And where's your what's your take on ownership?

15:31

Speaker 2

-

Well, I didn't, uh, I didn't use tariffs as a first resort. I didn't use nationalisation as a first resort. These are things I'm doing because we now as a country need to have resilience of supply, foundational materials into our supply chain, steel being critical for defence and lots of other parts of our economy. I did so because of oversupply from certain parts of the world that would have made it all of our primary production in our country unsustainable. And I did it because I firmly believed that these companies, because of our strategy and because of the steps that I've taken, will have a profitable, sustainable future.

And that, as I said, when it comes without tariffs, well, tariffs will be there for as long as they are needed. But we are working very carefully with our global partners to try and work on the, the, uh, the global forces that are necessitating tariffs in the first place and or measures in the first place. The EU very similar landscape for steel and, and overall economy than the UK America similarly and all are taking similar steps. I think there is a lot that we can do with our global partners to try and create the circumstances where we can mitigate oversupply from wherever it may originate, but also to get to a point where we can start to deal with the tariffs.

I don't want didn't want to bring the tariffs in in the first place. You'll notice I didn't even make a statement on tariffs until three months after the EU had done so, that America had already gone there in the first place. And I was getting criticised for not doing so because I was trying everything as an alternative to bringing them in, because I know how disruptive they are. Tariffs are a lose lose, and I want to get under the from from under the feet of tariffs as soon as I can.

But I would only do so when the circumstances arise. And when it comes to ownership. Well it is as I said, it is my belief that we will lead to a sustainable organization because of the measures and because of the strategy that I have implemented, and in which case, I'm not keeping British Steel in public ownership for ideological reasons. And that company will have the future that is best fit for its organisation and the community that depend on it.

15:33

Speaker 1

-

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

15:33

Speaker 4

-

Can I could I just add I mean, to be clear, global overcapacity on supply is still increasing. So by the end of 2027, we're expecting the supply of steel to outstrip demand by about 30%. That is a very challenging operating place for any steel business in the UK or indeed the European Union, Canada, the US, other places that have used these kind of steel measures. However, as the Secretary of State has said, as part of the steel trade measures approach that's been taken, that they will be reviewed every 12 months to enable us to make changes to reflect the market situations that we see.

15:33

Speaker 1

-

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

15:33

Speaker 7

-

Thank you. Chair. You told us there that steel is critical for defence. And there was much talk when British Steel was effectively nationalised about defence and that sovereign capability. But the reality is we just simply don't make the right steels. The Business Trade Committee went aboard HMS Cardiff in dock on the Clyde, and we were told by BAE systems that British firms simply had not bid for the steel for those ships. Now the steel is required for that and aviation and other defence area is critical to the defence of the realm.

As you say, we are applying tariffs on this. This sounds less like a shot in the arm than a shot in the head for defence.

15:34

Speaker 2

-

Well, I'm not applying tariffs unless it's to protect materials that are made in the UK. So you know much more. I think 78% of the steel that comes into the UK will still be will still be outside of the tariff regime. Sorry.

15:35

Speaker 4

-

Yeah. By value.

15:35

Speaker 2

-

By outside of the the tariff regime by value. So so you can see that it's this highly targeted as it can be. Now when it comes to steal. This is one of these areas where, of course, we've gone through a period of disinvestment in defence, and now we're going into a period of high intensity investment in defence. Can with these industries and these foundational industries that evolve over decades in order to have the relationships and produce the materials that are required, they can't just turn it on in a heartbeat.

All these different steel products to the view in a way that's needed. But I can tell you that already when it comes to our infrastructure, 80% of Network Rail's requirements are provided by British Steel. I've used all the agency going back to the procurement side, that I have to align the assets that we are involved in. So, for example, the Gigafactory in Somerset, we have put £240 million of support into that project. It is using British made steel, 240 tons of British made steel in its production.

So we are using all of the assets and influence and agency. We have to ensure that British Steel production benefits from wherever we can. Now I hope over time the sector can we can we continue to expand?

15:36

Speaker 1

-

I just want to make sure that we nail Mr. Cooper's point here because it's so important. So we've just said this week we're going to spend about £298 billion on the defence investment plan. Not enough in my view, but it's a large number. I mean, now that number is on the table. Now the kit that we need to procure is on the table. Who now sits down to translate this into a pipeline of orders for British Steel. I mean, where and how does that happen in government?

15:37

Speaker 2

-

Well, my department is working as closely as we possibly can on the dip. The dip is still in places quite high level. We are making sure we go down into the detail and we will align assets that benefit British businesses as much as we can. It has been my steadfast determination because I have been involved in some of the conversations, not many, and not all of them over dip that it is used to benefit British businesses as much as possible, in a responsible way, in a value for money way, and that, of course includes steel wherever possible.

Now, where there is the opportunity, where we have certainty in defence procurement into the future, then of course, the steel sector can start to adapt to it. And when you have a set of assets which are able, because they have security and sustainability to think long term, they can make those decisions. And don't forget speciality steel owned. Uh, and, and to a large extent supplying into the defence sector already. So we have a lot of, uh, a lot of investment in defence when it comes to steel and a lot of critical supplies.

But I do think that there is a big opportunity for the steel sector.

15:38

Speaker 1

-

Clearly. Anything further on that. Thank you Antonio.

15:38

Speaker 5

-

Thank you very much. Um staying on steel tariffs then. So the downstream steel fabricators face a double hit from the new steel trade measures. Higher costs for imported steel inputs while fabricated steel products can still be imported without any tariffs. What assessment have you made of the risk that this will accelerate the offshoring of fabrication work and threaten the UK's downstream industry?And why wasn't there an exemption for fabricators like Canada had when they introduced similar tariffs?

15:39

Speaker 2

-

Uh, as I said before, I've. I worked really hard to avoid the need to do this in the first place, but I came to the conclusion that we would lose all primary production of steel if I didn't act in the way that I did. So in a methodical. Way myself and the teams set about a regime that would protect British Steel production as much as possible, whilst also allowing the free flow of steel into the country, which is not in need of protection. Uh, when we released our first set of quotas and the details of it, of course there was a lot of representation.

And in response to that, the exemptions rose by a third. Before we got to the point of announcing the final set of measures last week, I think it was. So we have really listened and strained to adapt as much as possible to mitigate the impacts. You wrote to me about a number of the companies, because I understand the community that you represent with such voice. Energy, if I might say, uh, are in. Your patch. Every one of the companies that you came to me with ended up having the quotas adapted and increased, uh, as a result, or certainly, uh, over time.

So it shows that we did listen. Now going forward, we're going to have regular periods where we will assess the impact of this on the sector and on the various interests, because it's such a diverse sector, we will assess it. We will stay in close touch with as many primary producers, users and fabricators as possible, and we will adapt if needed, necessary and in a proportional way, uh, providing it always protects British.

15:40

Speaker 1

-

This is going to be a longer debate, which we're going to stay on top of. But thank you very much for those reassurances. And just before we leave Industrial Strategy, I just want to pick up automotive with Justin Madders. Yeah, thank you chairman.

15:40

Speaker 9

-

Good afternoon, Secretary of State. Um, obviously, you know, around the world, lots of countries have pulled back on their, uh, Zev mandates. They realize that the market is not where it was envisaged. The chancellor said a few weeks ago the review was going to come forward. Are you able to tell us when that review will actually start?

15:41

Speaker 2

-

Uh, I. AM not able to talk about processes that may or may not be underway within government at the moment, because you understand that collective responsibility requires, uh, people. Like me to keep my mouth shut, uh, until something is out the door. But I can tell you is that, as you know, I've undertaken an extensive period of listening to the sector, uh, and recognizing the challenges that have been put to me. I hope that I can come back very soon and talk to your committee with more certainty about some of the things that may or may not be out there in the ether.

Perhaps if I could, if you allow me just to take a step back and talk a bit more broad terms, not specifically relating to Zev, but where I.

15:41

Speaker 9

-

Just. Can we just just stay on that for a minute because you.

15:42

Speaker 1

-

Know.

15:42

Speaker 2

-

I.

15:42

Speaker 9

-

You can add in your your bit in a minute, but you will know from talking to to industry just how important a swift decision is on this. And you know, there will be investment decisions that will, uh, be waiting for a signal from government. So are you able to give us an indication of a timescale when you will be able to say something more concrete?

15:42

Speaker 1

-

Let me put it like this. AstraZeneca told us, um, but because of the slowdown in decision making, when the government came to office, they then missed an investment cycle, basically. And that led to the cancellation of the factory up in speak. We do not want that happening to the automotive industry. If the consultation is not out the door next week, then there is a real risk that the delay that will accompany a new Prime minister coming in actually imperils manufacturing facilities in our country.

So the point and the pointed way Mr. Mattis is putting his question is absolutely right.

15:43

Speaker 2

-

I agree, so. I can tell you that I suspect if you speak to your local manufacturer, they will. I would be surprised if they felt that the engagement they'd have with me personally had not been constructive and was landing on fertile ground when it came to the issues that they've been raising, raising with me. Uh, I hope that I can come back very soon. If I can complete before I think you'll understand why I'm phrasing what I'm phrasing in the way that I am.

Uh, I can't speak directly to what may or may, what process may or may not be unfolding on on Zev other than the fact, I hope that there will be more we can say publicly very, very soon, but I can say what my approach to issues such as the transition towards net zero and the targets that are in place, that impact industry and business. Uh, I am a ten out of ten when it comes to getting to the destination of these, these targets, you know, the, the 2030 target, 2035 targets, 2040 targets in some cases and 2050 targets.

We must get there, but we will only get there if we are highly creative and adaptive and flexible along the journey. And that means with targets. It means with investment. It means in the nature of the partnership, but it also means listening to the voices of consumers, because these targets, on behalf of consumers, on behalf of our country, are actually having a profound impact on consumers. So therefore, we need to be cognizant of where consumers are now when it comes to these sorts of issues.

That is the approach that I am taking. I think we are more likely, in general terms, to meet these targets if we are highly flexible and creative about how we achieve them and the journey that we take towards them.

15:44

Speaker 9

-

Okay, so I'm a big fan of saying you've got to take people with you. And I think you, you, yeah, that's, that's your, your way of saying we need to sort of be flexible. So look, you've got the message from the committee. This is so, so important. We need we need a real signal publicly as soon as possible. Can I just ask one very specific question about the way it operates?Because I think there needs to be more flexibility there.

And the evidence that we've heard that UK manufacturers are effectively paying millions of pounds in credits to Chinese manufacturers who probably aren't doing things in as carbon a neutral way as as UK manufacturers. If you went to, um, you know, someone in the street and said, did you realize that that's one of the unintended or perhaps intended consequences of this, uh, process?Would you say, actually, I agree with, with you that that's not what we should be aiming for and that needs to be looked at as well.

Or would you say, well, actually, that's, that's the way the system works. And we're going to keep that.

15:45

Speaker 2

-

I've heard that kind of story as well, but I've gone so far as and a total credit to our automotive sector that they have shared with me in confidence, uh, raw commercial data so that I can make my own judgment about these issues. That's the degree with which I've been, uh, throwing myself into this issue.

15:45

Speaker 1

-

Okay. We've got a couple of, I think, I think we're going to take away very, very soon and creative. I think those are, those are the two phrases that we're going to try and decode. We're going to turn to the Employment Rights Act. And Tony bounce.

15:46

Speaker 5

-

Thank you very much, chair. Um, so, um Secretary of State, when you last appeared before this committee, you wouldn't give us a date for the manifesto commitment to the review of the single worker status, but said explicitly we will get to it. Can you tell us now when we should expect a review of single worker status?

15:46

Speaker 2

-

Are we getting closer to it?

15:46

Speaker 5

-

Okay.

15:46

Speaker 2

-

But it is still, uh, it is still, uh. At the stage where I'm trying to consider how best to approach it and how best to, to, to get to it and to, uh. Uh, you know, look, you. Will know and obviously, uh, Mr. Matters will know better than anyone just how much bandwidth this is. This agenda, quite correctly, is taking in my department because we still have a whole series of consultations that have just closed, that are still outstanding and are still yet to be implemented.

We have an enormous amount of secondary legislation to get through in order to get what we have underneath, and there are still a couple of areas where there is still, uh, there is still a wide, uh, set. A wide variance of views between different sectors, government, the business and unions that we need to close. So I need to get these done. Uh, and issues like the one you raise with single issue status, it really needs a lot of my bandwidth to get it right.

And right now I'm allocating that bandwidth to get these really tricky things there. Because if we don't, then some of that stuff will start slipping. And I really, really will not tolerate that sort of stuff slipping because that'll start taking us, you know, uh, into timescales that none of us want.

15:47

Speaker 5

-

You'll have heard the evidence given to this committee, particularly by the beauty associations, the hairdressers, who are predicting the end of an employed model in hairdressing, for example, and are absolutely clear that there is a massive competitive disadvantage if you employ hairdressers and hairdressing apprentices, as opposed to allocating each chair for a supposedly self-employed hairdresser. It is interesting, I think, that many of the business associations who are most impacted by this rise in bogus self-employment are so very keen, alongside trade unions, as you would expect for the government to move in this area.

So I hope very much that we will hear soon that this is becoming a priority for government.

15:48

Speaker 2

-

You, I hear you. And also, after you took the evidence, before I went into hairdressers in Hove to speak to them, about to try and get their their view on it from the local perspective as well, I hear you.

15:48

Speaker 1

-

15:48

Speaker 9

-

Chairman, just following up on that. So you say we're getting closer. I just want to, um, compare and contrast a couple of statements we've had from the minister on this. So it. Departmental questions in January, she said we will. Push our consultation as soon as possible, which clearly now we're six.

15:49

Speaker 2

-

Months on single status.

15:49

Speaker 9

-

Yes. Yeah. Six months down the line. So that um. That that as soon as possible has got some latitude. Um but then in response to, uh, our report on small business strategy, the government said the government is committed to a targeted consultation on worker status. Can you explain to the committee what what that means is that does that is that a specific aspect of it?Is is it a more limited.

15:49

Speaker 2

-

I wouldn't I wouldn't read too much into into that. I mean, I we are thinking about what a consultation looks like, but. I think you'll see now whether it's getting together, getting together, CW and bringing Dan Daniel over the. Daniel Zelinsky uh, over and sitting down with them multiple times over the period a month to get them through that tricky period. And that has now been balloted and accepted. And now they have real progress. I've never sat and I've spoken very favourably about my department because it's amazing.

But there was quite some nervousness about Secretary of State getting involved in that kind of business, uh, in such a granular way. I don't avoid getting in there. I think the way to get through these issues is if they're going to be tricky and perhaps even contentious in places, then we need to get as many people and voices heard as possible. That's my instinct.

15:51

Speaker 9

-

You have the committee's wisdom at your disposal.

15:51

Speaker 2

-

Thank you, I appreciate it.

15:51

Speaker 1

-

Growth Levy as well.

15:51

Speaker 9

-

Just before we leave this topic, um, so I want to ask you a couple of questions about zero hours in the consultation, but I just want to ask about the growth duty, um, the growth duty bill that's coming forward. Yeah.

15:51

Speaker 2

-

So you mean the regulator.

15:51

Speaker 9

-

So section one of the Health and Safety at Work Act says it's the duty of every employer to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees. Now, does this bill supersede that in any way?Are you expecting any qualifications to that pretty, uh, important and clear, right.

15:51

Speaker 2

-

No, no, Justin. And these are things that we've spoken about before. This is my drive on modernising regulation is to have regulations that are fit for the moment that we're living in. And the more you go into this, whether it's in the workplace, whether it's in construction, uh, the way that we, the people in the workplace and we interact with the workplace has fundamentally changed. And unless we recognise that, because it's quite, I mean, so just to give you a slightly outlie because it's so fresh in my mind, I did a visit yesterday to a company that's building autonomous ships that's doing incredible work on security, on marine biology and scientific endeavour and industrial work and wind farms and all this stuff.

These are 36m long. Was there at, uh, the. Journey, I went into a ship that had been built with no people needed to operate it. And it has a washing machine and a tumble dryer on it, because the regulations on ships of a certain size is. It must have them because of the people you work on them must be able to clean their clothes. So that's just an outlier example of how absurd. So that is the kind of modernisation I'm looking at.

The idea that I would do something that would diminish the the onus on businesses or people running workplaces to keep people safe and also healthy, uh, in an ever changing world. Uh, something that, uh, that I don't recognise, but there is so much we can liberate workers from as well in terms of dealing with the stuff that I've just said.

15:53

Speaker 9

-

I think, I think you've been very clear on that. Um, one of the sort of rationales for the for the growth bill is to reduce unnecessary risk aversion. What can you give some examples of how that would sort of operate in the world of health and safety at work?

15:53

Speaker 2

-

So it's mostly about about areas of, as I've said, um, it's not. About being risk averse with people's individual safety in the workplace. Uh, let me give you an example of wave, the autonomous vehicle company. World leading, gone from zero to creating, you know, just under 2000 jobs in, in a few short years now valued at 11 billion. Now they could be, they could easily go abroad, but we need to keep them here. What they really want is the streets of London to test their products on.

Other companies are coming in and finding ways of. Because of the sheer volume of money they have to get various things on the streets. We passed a statutory instrument to allow them to pilot on the streets of London. TfL, the mayor, the fantastic Mayor of London, signed off on it. TfL signed off on it, but didn't implement it because the further you go down an organisation, of course, the more the person who's signing off on this stuff probably feels the risk of allowing autonomous vehicles on the streets of London.

Despite all of the many safety checks that go into it. So it started to grind to a halt and we were on the cusp of losing billions and billions of pounds of investment, and also the creation of fantastic jobs going elsewhere because we couldn't get it through. So when I talk about risk aversion, uh, in regulation, it's the regulations allow people to do things. But we have a culture that really means that people implement it in an incredibly cautious way. So it took my department to kind of be the sort of risk backstop in that one issue.

And we can't do that in every area.

15:55

Speaker 1

-

If you want to just cover off some of the zero hours contracts that we, we also just mustn't let you get away.

15:55

Speaker 9

-

15:55

Speaker 2

-

I'll continue this another time.

15:55

Speaker 9

-

Yeah. Well, I think.

15:55

Speaker 1

-

That's helpful. That's very helpful context. I'm grateful for that.

15:55

Speaker 4

-

We are actually at the moment running a deep dive looking at health and safety regulations specifically to try and understand the kind of situations that the Secretary of State has just described of things that just aren't fit for purpose anymore, rather than creating risk for people.

15:56

Speaker 9

-

And certainly I think it's helpful for this committee to understand how much of this is folklore and how much of it is actually, you know, having a direct impact on investment decisions. So just on, on zero hours, we had some very useful evidence last week, uh, from a number of witnesses. Um, you've got in the consultation at the moment, an indication that a 12 week reference period for calculating guaranteed hours is, uh, the government's preferred position. Certainly my take on the evidence from the employers association reps we heard last week was, was actually their argument that seasonal work will be impacted by this is easily remedied by them employing people on fixed term contracts for the duration of the of the work.

Is that an analysis that you would share?

15:56

Speaker 2

-

It's certainly an analysis that I'm welcoming in the consultation, and I'm sure you would have directed them to make sure their voice is heard through the consultation, because it closes on the 25th of August. So there's plenty of time to get into that consultation. Uh, you know, the government position is clear, but the consultation is there. And we want to you will know that it was quite a long process getting that consultation. Delivered and out the door. Um, because we want to be honest with people about where our travel is, but we also want to have enough scope.

That is a meaningful consultation. And of course, different bits of government have different views because of different stakeholders and different pressures. So we need to make sure that this consultation can bring us all and anchor us all. In the experiences and the views of the real experts in the front line.

15:57

Speaker 9

-

Can I, can I just just probe a little bit on, um, the thresholds for qualification under these, these rules, which, uh, again, in the consultation, the government have indicated somewhere between 8 and 20 hours as being the sort of preferred option. What's the reason for, for that sort of band.

15:57

Speaker 2

-

Uh, it was the reason was, uh, lots of government analysis, lots of business analysis, and also also listening to the unions who of course were taking a different position, but the variance in the analysis was very broad. It was just very broad. And this is one of these areas which I spoke about earlier, uh, earlier, where I am personally dedicating a lot of time. Dearden an astonishing amount of time because I know I need to get this right in the moment that we're in.

Uh, can I just also say at this point that, uh, because of the variance in views on this issue and 1 or 2 others, uh, by. Definition, people aren't going to be happy with the results. You know, there's going to be a lot of people on both sides that are, that are not going to be happy with it. This is not one and done. You know, we are aiming to be in government for a while, and we are looking at how we can learn because these are strident changes to the to the labour market and we need to get it right.

But we also need to realize that with the nature of the economy moving forward in the way that it is and the shifts in societal change, the shifts in climate change, we are going to have to keep up with employment law in a way that, uh, has simply never been the case in the past. We can't just do once every 30 years anymore.

15:58

Speaker 9

-

Well, again, the wisdom will be available for you should you.

15:58

Speaker 2

-

Require so generous with your wisdom.

15:58

Speaker 9

-

Um, could I, could I just sort of. Do you have any idea if you set the threshold at eight hours a week, how many workers would actually benefit from it?If you set it at 20 hours, how many people will benefit from it?

15:59

Speaker 2

-

It has been analysis, but I think we're sharing this with, you know, we now need to wait till we get the consultation and have this debate.

15:59

Speaker 9

-

And just one one further point, which which was from Joanne Thompson, which I think is a really important point, she was basically saying, and there was a little bit of agreement from the employers reps on this as well. Wherever you set the threshold, you risk unintended consequences of people who are just under it, not being given additional hours and those who are above it being given all the additional hours. Is that something that you're aware of?

15:59

Speaker 2

-

Unintended consequences is something I've been extremely mindful of from the outset. In every step of the way, I'm worried about coalescing around targets, as happens in lots of other circumstances when you have targets. Uh, I am concerned about these aspects of it, which is why we just need to get it right.

15:59

Speaker 1

-

All right. I'm going to turn this to the trade bit of your portfolio. Now we're going to start with online trade with Mr. Reynolds.

16:00

Speaker 3

-

Thank you. Chair. Secretary Day last month, we on this committee demonstrated products that had been recalled by the Office of Product Safety and Standards still being available to buy on online marketplaces. So knowing that the Pram consultation has just closed, what legal duties does your department plan to put on online marketplaces to ensure that they are not selling illegal products?

16:00

Speaker 2

-

Yes, it's just it has just closed. So we you know, we are in the process of just analysing and seeing what, uh, whether there's any legislative or non-legislative, uh, remedies that we need to take action on. It was also something that I was aware of in my previous role at Dcit as well. Obviously for the technology side and the online side of it. And in that role, we were acting in things like weaponry and other items that were coming in through online trade, uh, and dealt really, really closely with the Home office when it came to safety issues about stuff that was coming in, uh, via parcels, uh, and measures were brought in in those circumstances.

So these are things that I have form on acting when I see them.

16:01

Speaker 3

-

So, uh, consumer group, which are suggesting and calling for consumer protections to be the same, whether you buy on online marketplace or whether you walk into John Lewis to purchase the product, is that something you would support putting that that onus on the marketplaces who say when they're in front of a committee, they do a very good job and they work very hard, but there still seems to be so many products, millions of them, that fall through their net.

16:01

Speaker 2

-

We have to recognise that when you say the same protections they are, they are they are different places and they are different marketplaces. And the difference between virtual and online are different. If you just take age verification, for example, uh, even though as we move to the digital age, I am personally of the view that we need to have a digital ID system that can be presented in the physical. But if you've got somebody who's 13 trying to buy stuff, which is 18, it's much easier in person to, to deal with at the moment because it wouldn't it wouldn't get past the front door or the first conversation.

But so there is a difference in it. But when it's come to certain other measures, we have been able to crack down and enforce, even against Amazon and some of the very large, uh, producers. So I am open minded about how we deal with this. And I recognise that something we do absolutely need to deal with and is something that those companies need to put a lot more effort into as well. And this, incidentally, isn't just the producers, the, the kind of market retailers like Amazon that are online.

It's also the second hand ones as well. I mean, things like gum Tree and the others, you know, have really have to step up and make sure that their sites are protecting people and keeping them safe and that, you know, these rules are there for, for a reason, making sure that products don't combust. Uh, well, that's there for a reason. And we need to make sure that online retailers are upholding it.

16:02

Speaker 1

-

Well, Mr. Reynolds was able to buy many combustible items last week. So it is it is a real problem which has not gone away. And do you have a sense of how long it's going to take you to turn around the consultation response and come to a conclusion?

16:02

Speaker 2

-

Or tell you, but I'll be in touch with you and let you know when I know more, right?

16:03

Speaker 1

-

Moving on to the even less controversial topic of European relations, then. Mr. Cooper. combustible though. Equally combustible.

16:03

Speaker 7

-

The much vaunted EU reset has been a bit of a damp squib. Report on it was fairly, fairly scathing, I would say, and it's expected that just 0.5% to GDP in this country over the next decade. What is your view on a new relationship with the EU?Are you pining for a return to the EU?Should you be honest with people and get us back into the single currency?Is that really what you're seeking?

16:03

Speaker 2

-

For the chairman, it likes these conversations to go along at a clip. The idea of asking me the question of such an open ended question about should we return?Or no?We the EU reset was was a seismic moment because not least for the relationships that it started to rebuild, uh, coming into office in my previous role, where the previous commission was in place, the relationships were broken. They were highly strained. Now.

16:04

Speaker 7

-

Now, in terms of vibes and fields, but it's hardly seismic GDP, is it?

16:04

Speaker 2

-

So let me be really clear about this. You don't deliver with bad relationships and you can't go from, hi, I'm a new government. Let's shake hands, have a conversation to suddenly going to where we want to be. We, we have to, you know, they have to earn our trust and we have to earn their trust. And we've got to put the hard yards in and in the volume of visits that I've done in the last three months to Paris, to Czech Republic, to Sweden, to Germany to, uh.

Brussels numerous times. I think people would see that this is a government and I'm a secretary of state that's really put the effort into building relationships. Don't underestimate how important relationships are in trade overall, not least when it comes to the EU. The difference with the EU is there is a lot of commissioners and there is a lot of different branches of it, and there's a lot of relationships that we need to that we need to manage. But look, when it comes to food and drink that is on the table, the single electricity market, we are jumping into, uh, we are, uh, we, we are high ambition.

Uh, what I said at the beginning about the trillion dollar company, I think it's very likely that it would come from an amalgam of different countries working together. The whole continent of Europe doesn't.

16:05

Speaker 7

-

Have ambition. My ambition is to be a dilettante Playboy, but I've absolutely no idea how I'm going to get there or a timescale for it. Ambition is marvelous. But we, you know, we need, we need.

16:06

Speaker 2

-

I can't answer your problem, but. with with my with with mine. There are timetables and there are there is progress towards it. You know, you have seen consistent unlocking of different issues and challenges that we face as a country and opportunities. When you've seen, for example, the cooperation we're having on critical minerals at the moment, again, working with our key partners, uh, on the. Of Europe is essential. So all of these things, we are moving forward.

It is a shame, of course, it's a shame that we haven't had the summit. And the summit will happen. It will happen as soon as possible. We've locked down an enormous amount led by Nick Thomas-symonds. But of course I lead on certain areas as well, and I can tell you that, uh, that that that will be a big moment. These annual cycles that we've now got into having been involved in the lead up to it on both sides, we see it as an opportunity just to do things that we had thought was impossible before.

And are these conversations difficult?They really, really are. Just with the EU, but with with others as well. Uh, it has been a revelation to see from the inside and to lead teams in negotiations just what it takes and how much heart and soul entire teams of people put into it.

16:07

Speaker 1

-

What's been locked down then?

16:07

Speaker 2

-

Well, we'll find out soon. No, we'll find out soon.

16:07

Speaker 1

-

Okay. Well, I mean, Mr. Thomas Symonds was hoping to present his bill, um, in the week of the summit. Obviously, that's no longer possible. So is that bill going to be presented before recess or not?

16:08

Speaker 2

-

I can't speak for Nick Thomas-symonds, uh, into what?What he's planning to do for it, but.

16:08

Speaker 1

-

It sounds like the whole shooting match is wait and see.

16:08

Speaker 2

-

Uh, I can't speak for him, and I don't know where he is now, so. You shouldn't read anything in what I'm saying other than the fact I can't speak for him. I mean, he he couldn't come here and tell you what I'm planning in the next, uh, in the next ten days before recess.

16:08

Speaker 4

-

I would say, though, that technical discussions continue on all of those areas that the Secretary of State has just mentioned. So SPS, a single electricity market, emissions trading conversations, negotiations are continuing at official level.

16:09

Speaker 1

-

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Maynard.

16:09

Speaker 8

-

Yeah. Um, I'm trying to reconcile your statements for high ambition and being focused on growth with the fact that the UK voted to leave the EU, but they we didn't vote to leave the single market and the customs Union and Frontier Economics published something I think two weeks ago, which said being inside the single market customs union would be roughly eight times the growth of what is currently being negotiated. And yet, you know, it's a red line. And, you know, we've got businesses going to the wall all across the country.

And the Labour government insists on, on, on sticking to that line. And it's to everybody's detriment. And it's just it's a disaster. And your Minister for trade last week told us that if he had his his choice, he'd be back inside the EU. So I just I don't get why, why, why you maintain this position because it's we're paying for it in in lives and jobs and welfare.

16:10

Speaker 1

-

Sounds like a split at the heart of DVT.

16:10

Speaker 2

-

No, it's not, but I'll explain because it's frustrating me hearing you speak frankly because I put my heart and soul into the remain campaign. The amendment to deliver the second referendum was had my name attached to it. It was the Kyle Wilson amendment I voted for remaining in the single market in the customs union. I looked and went to Norway and to other countries to examine what it looked like in in the other, uh, European. Area agreements and so forth, uh, rejoining those institutions is a very different situation than deciding not to leave it.

Uh, when you say we didn't vote for it, I voted to remain in these things. And I accept that the British public didn't vote for it. But that is not the situation that we are in. And you have to accept the reality of the position we're in. Let me finish the sentence. You're making a your the premise of your question is based on if we were in there now in the customs union or in the single market or in the EU, then businesses would have this.

I'll say two things about it. The. The observation I had during the Brexit years, and for those of us who lived through it and were participants in it and tried to lead battles in that period, the thing that frustrated me the most was that every problem we faced in the country had one one fault, the EU. They blamed everything on the EU and everything would be great if we left. I urge people like me who are arch pro-Europeans, not to make the reverse mistake that every problem we face as a country could be solved by the EU.

Now, as a pro-European, there are certain things that we have done and I have done as a Secretary of State that has used some of the things that we can do outside of the EU. The second thing I would say to you is that going back into the institutions is not like joining the RAC, and you get the coverage from the moment you join. Turkey started the ascension process in 1976, and they joined in 1996, and that was just the customs union. 20 years of negotiation.

Look at the other countries which are aspiring to in the Western Balkans and others aspiring to different parts of it. It is a extremely long process. And what I am doing and what my analysis is clear. I am Secretary of State today and our country has a growth problem. We have got the highest growth in the G7. We have achieved it through hard work, tough decisions and great policy. But we need to go further and we have opportunities to deliver growth for our businesses today.

That doesn't require 20 years of negotiation. The other thing that was absent from your question is anything to do with our negotiating partners?We could all agree what would be ideal for our country, but that's us agreeing here. The only thing that matters is what our negotiating partners also aspire to. Have you had an discussed with them what their vision for Britain is either inside or out, because it matters.

16:13

Speaker 1

-

Here's the challenge.

16:13

Speaker 2

-

16:13

Speaker 1

-

We spend. We spend a lot of time in Europe, and we spend a lot of time bilaterally with our allies and all of them. I mean, 100% of them say, we don't know where you want to go. We don't know what your vision is. And we think that the lack of that political vision beyond the common understanding, is impairing our ability to make progress. Now, it could be that if we're not going to go back in or join a customs union, there is perhaps a halfway house.

It could be working with Iceland, Ukraine, Western Balkans, others to try and create a concentric circle. As President Macron once put it, that could be one option, but there are other options available. But what we lack as a committee is any sense of what the government's ultimate vision should be.

16:14

Speaker 2

-

It is true that. The process of leaving was so brutal. And so disruptive that it's hard to come back and say and articulate a political vision for what we want that is agreed by the EU, because you can't have them and us moving in different directions and sharing two separate visions. Otherwise, negotiations won't work because of the nature of the bad deal that we inherited and the critical areas that we had to start picking up the pieces from. So we have thrown ourselves into those, and I think it is creating the space where by which we can have a deeper conversation with the EU about what the long term future looks like.

But I think when you look back on this period, this particular two years will be a very small slice of and it will still be seen as the immediate post-Brexit period. But we have to build the relationships and earn the trust because, uh, look, let's just be honest. I'm not going to hide some of the things that's difficult to talk about in these things. They're looking at the polling in this country. They don't want an okey dokey of in, out, in, out, in, out.

They want stability and security and dependability from their partners.

16:15

Speaker 1

-

The chances of that may have just gone up at 2:00 this afternoon, but.

16:15

Speaker 2

-

Well, another another by election. I'm sure that's filling them with, uh, filling them with with confidence over there. But that will be seen over there as it is here, which is a sideshow and a self-indulgence. But, uh, they are looking at the politics here and they want stable partners. They also are grappling with some of the same sort of populist challenges that we are in domestic countries. So there's there's lots of dynamics there, but we are having these conversations about what the long term future is.

But right now, we're in a place where we are aligned from the EU to the UK about what is possible in the immediate future, what is highly ambitious. We're also looking at areas where things have gone a bit wrong in the last couple of years. So we're learning the lessons of safe. For example, we wanted to go into safe. The EU wanted us to go into safe, and we didn't get there. That was no criticism of their negotiating team.

And it certainly wasn't a criticism of ours. But it does show sometimes that we're not entirely aligned. So I just urge those people who think that there is a quick fix to this, that to figure out, to bring the voice of what is possible and negotiable to the table, think about what the interests of the country is in the short and medium term. But what I am not doing is trying to avoid what a long term debate is. But please situate any conversations about rejoining any of the institutions of the EU into what is long term and be have an answer to the short term, the immediate term.

Some of the growth challenges that we face, because if you ignore those, the politics will never, ever move to the place where you want it to be.

16:17

Speaker 1

-

Mr.. I do want to come back in.

16:17

Speaker 8

-

I'm not advocating that there is a quick fix, and I'm not requiring us all to be fanboys of the EU. You know, I think I think we there are lots of warts out there and that's fine. But but what I am seeking is to question the high ambition on the table, because I don't think this is highly ambitious. And I think to the chair's point about direction and leadership, I think the country would benefit a lot by having a government which is much clearer about where it's headed on this point.

16:17

Speaker 1

-

Would you accept that, Secretary of State?

16:18

Speaker 2

-

I wouldn't accept that. We're not high ambition. The previous government would have got the deals that we had if they could, but they couldn't get it. So it shows that this government is able to unlock benefits for British people and British businesses in travel, in trade, that the previous lot were unable to. Uh, are we as two territories able to say what the long term, you know, 20, 30 years down the the line, the relationship will be?I don't think we've settled on that yet, but I think we are doing what is needed of us at the minute.

And since we came into office, which is fixing some of the really difficult challenges, and I've got to tell you, these negotiations aren't easy. You don't just turn up and say, look, we want SPS. And they say, well, we want you to have SPS because our business is to get the food into yours as well and, uh, and then just deal with it. I mean, it is extraordinarily knotty. You would have thought, because we've just left that it's all on the table because it's because we're so aligned in different ways.

It's not. It is like starting from scratch as if we were any other country. But I will say, if you allow me briefly, that I do look to Norway, Turkey, Switzerland, they all have different relationships with different EU. Institutions. And the EU itself. And it is very settled and it's very dependable and it's very long term. So I do understand what the benefits of having a settled view. Uh, but right now, in two years in this immediately disruptive period after Brexit, we have not been able to deliver that kind of long term political settlement.

But I think the progress we are making is highly desirable, and it is at the outer limits of what is negotiable, depending on, you know, with our negotiating partners. And I wish we were having this conversation on the other side of the summit, and I look forward to coming back and having that conversation.

16:19

Speaker 1

-

That's actually very helpful. Thank you. And meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic.

16:20

Speaker 6

-

Thanks. Secretary of state. In June, the US found that the UK had failed to effectively enforce a ban on forced labour imports. Um, will you and your department commit to publishing the findings of the Responsible Business Conduct Review?

16:20

Speaker 1

-

16:20

Speaker 2

-

To be clear about what the US did, the US graded different countries into the legislation that they have and the actions that they're taking. And they put us in the highest category for which they have identified, uh, out of all of them. And it hasn't had any tariff implications for this country as a result of being in the top tier of it. That is recognition of the work that we are already doing, a recognition that this government cares deeply about these things. Um, but I can tell you that this is one of the areas where I personally really want to see progress.

There are parts of the world where forced labour is being used, and I need to make sure that, that none of the. Products of forced labour are coming into our country.

16:21

Speaker 1

-

Or to check this, I think the USTR proposed a 10% tariff. As a result, there were 14 countries of which we were one. There were indeed tiered tariffs, but I think he was.

16:21

Speaker 2

-

We were in the highest tier tariff. No country was not in the category that we're in. None of them were higher.

16:22

Speaker 1

-

But I still think we got a 10% tariff as a result.

16:22

Speaker 2

-

Yes.

16:22

Speaker 4

-

Which is a continuation of our existing tariff.

16:22

Speaker 2

-

Yes, I said unchanged. So the tariffs there's no there's no additional tariffs for us. Uh as I said, it's been it's been maintained. So, uh, there was one category which had. But no countries were in it. So we are in the highest category that the US effectively has. And it hasn't had any tariff implications for us because it's just maintained us at the level we're already on. But I do really care about this issue.

It is something I personally want to see how we can take steps to go forward in a way that is compatible with our international partners, particularly the EU and the US, but also takes into account the fact that we need to get this done in a way that is truly meaningful.

16:23

Speaker 6

-

Yeah, I mean, I'm obviously concerned about tariffs, but I'm probably more concerned by the moral question here, which, you know, so it's really reassuring that you will be publishing the Responsible Business Conduct Review.

16:23

Speaker 2

-

Yes.

16:23

Speaker 6

-

Yeah. Fantastic.

16:23

Speaker 2

-

But also, don't get me wrong, I'm, uh, we've already passed the sort of test the US status. Yeah. Uh, I, I'm looking at something that would make a tangible difference. Uh, and look, in these situations, what happens is, uh. That I will be presented with submissions from officials and it's based on what other countries are doing to keep us aligned. Uh, all I'm determined to do is to look at what is most effective that I believe is most effective as a Labour government, uh, right now, at the moment in time in which we are living.

And from there we look about compatibility with other countries, but we've already met. The standards have been set by the US. I just want to make sure that anything we do, we get right for the moment we're in because these sorts of opportunities don't come around that often. Uh, so when you do get the chance to look at things like forced labour, I want to make sure that it it gets that we rise to the moment that we're in.

16:24

Speaker 1

-

Thank you. Uh, I, we were a bit disappointed with Sir Chris Bryant's response that it's going to take until the end of the Parliament to get legislation on this. Can we not go faster?

16:24

Speaker 2

-

It might do, but let's see where we get to.

16:25

Speaker 1

-

Okay.

16:25

Speaker 2

-

And I'm you know, I want to get it right and I want to get it out.

16:25

Speaker 1

-

Okay. But in the meantime, we're obviously vulnerable to imports of goods made with forced labour. And I didn't quite catch when the Responsible Business Conduct Review would be published.

16:25

Speaker 4

-

16:25

Speaker 1

-

Yes.

16:25

Speaker 2

-

Yes, I'm I'll write to you when, when when I'm when I have clarity.

16:25

Speaker 1

-

Okay. Thank you very much. Um, and then turning to future trade deals, Mr. Maynard.

16:26

Speaker 8

-

Um, yes. So, uh, congratulations on the various trade deals done, um, frontier economics just published a bit of a bit of research saying that if you add them all together, that's roughly 14.9 billion versus 92 billion from being inside the EU. So it's six times smaller. All of those put together. Um, but notwithstanding that, looking out ahead, we've got Korea, we've got Switzerland, we've got Turkey, we've got possibly Mercosur, possibly Greenland. That's the one. And That you're most excited about.

How, how, where does Mercosur particularly rank in that?Um, tell us more.

16:26

Speaker 2

-

The one that I'm particularly excited about is the one that's closest to getting over the line, which currently is Switzerland. Uh, and again, a credit to my team. Look, we, we concluded GCC just recently, we got the implementation of the trade deal done just a fortnight ago. And that came because the Prime Minister was over there with Prime Minister Modi. And our teams were working literally through the around the clock, a war room in my office, uh, with, with officials so that we could support the Prime Minister in these talks.

So, uh, you signed a deal. And then also you then have to sort of implement it. Now the India trade deal goes live on the 15th of this month, which means that businesses up and down the country are going to benefit from it. We have had roadshows up and down the country because I am, uh, as much because, as you mentioned, the statistics. Well, we can bust those, uh, if we can get businesses exploiting them. Uh, and we've had a road show now where we're getting 600 people turning up to these roadshows wherever they're stopping, uh, to try and get them sold.

And we had one in Birmingham. You'll be pleased to hear at your technical college. Um, where again, 600, uh, businesses were, uh, came along to sort of understand how they can do it because we can get SMEs involved in trade, particularly with India trade deal, which is very SME friendly. Then we can fully exploit it. So, uh, the Switzerland one I. Think we're pretty close. We've had this huge pipeline coming down that we've already delivered this year.

Uh, when it comes to Mercosur, uh, I'm just assessing the, the potential benefits from it. One of the things that I have to assess about Mercosur is that the EU's, uh, entry. Into it gives, in certain circumstances, a competitive edge. So we're looking very closely at it. And we'll have updates for you on the future pipeline before long. But, you know, you ask about the future. Just look at what we've just done in the last year.

16:29

Speaker 8

-

And just on that, in terms of human rights, I mean, GCC particularly, but also India went pretty light on that. Um, just just talk us through kind of the trade offs that you are comfortable or uncomfortable with regard to that being made there, because human rights was largely carved out.

16:29

Speaker 2

-

Certainly I would never, ever see it in terms of a trade off, the idea that I would sit there and have a list of human rights and say, well, I'll, you know, I'll do I'll turn a blind eye to that because of a certain amount of potential trade. But I do have a fundamental principle here, and that is talking to countries in a structured way that binds you to the long term, gives you a leverage to discuss other issues that you don't have in other circumstances. So when it comes to the trade deals that we've struck, uh, we now have formal mechanisms in order to address issues within both of our territories that didn't exist before.

Is it perfect?And does it mean that Britain can solve every human rights issue in a short space of time?No, but we now have more agency to make the voices heard in a meaningful way in in an honourable way, on issues that Britain and British people are concerned about. That simply would not have existed if we hadn't had those trade deals in place.

16:30

Speaker 8

-

I mean, sorry, but I think that's an optimistic interpretation because essentially we have now given that free trade deal. And are you you know, how would you compare what what commitments you're lining up with, say, Switzerland with the GCC?Are you saying you've got the same human rights agreements with Switzerland as you do with GCC?

16:30

Speaker 2

-

It doesn't work like that. I'm sorry. Well, no no no no no no no it doesn't. And also um you know trade trade deals are about trade. Uh, and we must make sure that that trade upholds the, uh, the values of our country. Uh, and trade deals are broadly recognisable, one between the other. Um, but I am telling you that, uh, I would, I would hope that any reasonable person that was able to witness the conversations I had with, have with my counterparts over issues of human rights, that they would feel that the voice and the needs of it are recognised.

But if you want to open up trade deals, look, this is a decision that your party needs to make. But if you want to open up trade deals to embrace other areas, then other countries will insist in opening up trade deals for areas that concern them too. This is always a two way street, so that's why we keep trade as focused on trade as possible for mutual benefit. But I do not underestimate the impact of being in the room, talking face to face and raising issues that are difficult for your counterpart.

It really does matter. And over time, when it becomes more persistent, then you can see. So let me give you a hard example. Uh, we went to China earlier this year with the Prime minister. I went to China on day six of being in this job, and it was the first time that a trade secretary had been to China for seven years. And, uh, that paved the way for the Prime Minister's visit. The Prime Minister, that visit was about trade.

We signed 14 agreements, including a feasibility study, into what a services, a legal services agreement would look like. And because of our movement towards trade cooperation with China, the prime Minister was in China sitting with President XI. Now, you saw what came out of that, the lifting of sanctions on British parliamentarians, as well as other benefits. That only happened because we were talking about trade. So being in the room really matters. Trade gets you into the room and keeps you into the room in a formal way, and it enables you to raise other issues as well.

16:32

Speaker 8

-

Could I just have one technical question?Um, so all these free trade agreements. Great. Well done. What I find surprising is there isn't just an ad up every year to say, okay, well, this is what trade was before. This is what trade is. Now, post those free trade agreements because it's just technically useful to be able to publish that information to see what impact these these free trade agreements have over time. And I just would really ask that that would be something that we do just.

16:33

Speaker 1

-

Because I just set this in context as well. So when the trade strategy was published in June 2025, it was very clear. It said, we resolved to drive forward the many explicit proposals contained in these pages, and will soon set out criteria by which business in the wider world, outside government, can hold us to account for delivery. We're more than 12 months on. And so the question is, where are the criteria?

16:34

Speaker 4

-

So let me deal with both of those in turn. So on, uh, the, the value of the individual trade agreements, as you know, I think we have committed to produce two years after each agreement comes into force and monitoring reports, which enables you to see how trade with those countries are is changing. So we have, for instance, done those for Australia and New Zealand, which show you how trade has changed in that time period. But there is a lag, both in terms of, uh, you know, business take up and implementation, notwithstanding the work that the Secretary of State has just referred to that we do in advance of any trade agreement coming into effect to ensure the business community are beginning to engage with the opportunities and to realise that, which is what we've just done with the India Road.

Six cities, 600 businesses roughly have attended those. So the monitoring report that we published on Australia and New Zealand showed you that trade was up with Australia by 14%, with, uh, New Zealand by 19%. That was predominantly driven by services trade. But even waiting for the two years to come into force, there's then still a lag on getting the data. So we do, of course, as a government publish trade statistics on a regular basis. You can see how our trading patterns are changing over time on a fairly regular basis.

But we do something specific two years after trade agreements come into force. So you can see the immediate impact.

16:35

Speaker 1

-

Trade strategy criteria.

16:35

Speaker 4

-

Uh. Sorry. I've forgotten that. So, uh, actually some of the criteria on that will be set out in the annual report and accounts for the department, which we are hoping to lay before summer recess, she said with her toes and fingers crossed.

16:35

Speaker 1

-

Do you mind writing to us and setting out what the criteria are?It was a commitment made in the trade strategy, so we would be grateful to see it in black and white. Um, now it's an open secret that Defra is holding up the launch of Mercosur negotiations. I mean, what do you need to do to get Defra over the line with this and get a cross-party agreement done across government agreement done to actually get Mercosur talks launched.

16:36

Speaker 2

-

The first thing to say is, let me just genuinely pay tribute to Defra, because the role of Defra in all of our trade deals and, you know, in Switzerland, we are we are very close to concluding with Switzerland, and we couldn't have done it without really active support of Defra. They give voice to stakeholders that are completely critical to our economy, to our society. And of course, the voice of farmers is really important. And agricultural products and services, uh, there are, uh. The things I'm just really uncomfortable just picking out Defra when, uh, getting sign off.

16:36

Speaker 1

-

Other departments, you mean?

16:36

Speaker 2

-

Well, no, not not not I'm not, I'm not speaking specifically about Mercosur, but every government department has its, uh, you know, has a very clear voice in the sectors that they represent that of course they don't want or they may have concerns that a trade deal may, may impact or may impact the stakeholders in that sector. So it is always an exercise in dealing with it. And it's not just at the start of issuing a consultation or starting negotiations and getting the negotiating mandate. It's also once you've concluded and you start implementing these, we circle round and round and round different government departments.

So I'm really reticent to, uh, to, to single out Defra when it comes to Mercosur. Uh, you know, I am, I'm really keen. We explore the benefits of Mercosur as soon as we can. You know, where there is other government departments which still have concerns. I and my team are working really closely with them to assure them that starting the consultation process, you know, will take into full account of any concerns they may or may not have.

16:37

Speaker 1

-

We'll be able to get it launched before Christmas.

16:37

Speaker 2

-

I really hope so. I really hope so.

16:37

Speaker 1

-

Thank you. Turning to the post office, then you'll know that one of the consistent recommendations of this committee is that we get all of the open cases done this year. I think there are still 2800 cases still to settle. I don't think we've got a hard commitment from you to ensure that all 2800 are cleared this year. There is also this stubborn problem of the Horizon conviction redress scheme, where people are entitled to £600,000 in settlement, but for reasons which frankly baffle us, the department is deciding that that can only be paid in two instalments, £200,000 up front, followed by £400,000 downstream.

Now, what we can't understand is whether this is a resourcing problem, whether it's a capital problem, whether it's a game theory problem, whether it is some kind of ideological problem. These people have been through hell on earth. Why don't we just give them a cheque like up front for the whole amount?

16:38

Speaker 2

-

As you know, we discussed before when I was here first, the firstly. We have settled £1.6 billion worth has been paid to over 12,600 claimants, and the majority of cases have now been settled. Over 80%. When you get to the outstanding ones there, there are. There are many unique circumstances that need to be taken into account of. Because if, if, if, if, if there weren't particular circumstances there, then they would have been part of the mainstream settlement. So we are determined.

I still get very regular updates on this. We are trying really hard to get these final cases resolved on the particular quotes you gave me.

16:39

Speaker 1

-

But when we say final cases, I mean on HSS alone, it's 2724 cases that are still outstanding. And so it would be great if you could. Be given a deadline for closing these.

16:39

Speaker 2

-

I have. Gone through some of those cases to understand myself what some of the complications are. So I am satisfied that those complications need dealing with in an appropriate way. If we dealt with these complications in a way that wasn't satisfactory, or we did cut corners, then we could end up with a circumstance where you would be hauling me before you, uh, putting questioning to me from a very different direction. So we do need to get these things right, but that is not to negate the fact that we need to settle it as quickly as we possibly can.

16:40

Speaker 1

-

We'd be putting laurels on your head if you can give us these cases closed.

16:40

Speaker 4

-

I think the one other point I would add on this is we also need to be really careful and mindful of the pressure on claimants. We don't want to create additional pressure on them in the circumstances that they face. You know, we are working closely, as you know, with the justice, Restorative Justice Council, to ensure that we can approach these situations carefully. So we are trying to balance getting as much as possible by the end of the year, but without putting additional undue stress on claimants.

16:40

Speaker 1

-

So I'm now I'm now more alarmed than I was before I opened this question about when these cases will be settled. I mean, when do you think these cases will now be settled?

16:40

Speaker 2

-

I want to help you understand why I can't say it, because the further we go down, there may be a few that are. That will take more time. Uh, and just the engagement sometimes, you know.

16:41

Speaker 1

-

90%. Give us a look.

16:41

Speaker 2

-

Well, you see, the thing is, if you're saying what I want, you know, I would love to have these settled within weeks, but I am also very aware now, having deep dived into some of the cases in in individual terms, why it is so labor intensive to get some of. These cases resolved in a way that is satisfactory for the claimant and also, you know, for us being able to stand up and say that we have taken all due diligence in spending public.

16:41

Speaker 1

-

Money, people. Have you got working on getting these cases settled now?

16:41

Speaker 4

-

16:41

Speaker 2

-

I don't know that off the top of my head.

16:41

Speaker 4

-

So I'm just double checking.

16:42

Speaker 2

-

Can we write to you with that information?

16:42

Speaker 1

-

We can, because it would be great if you could provide, say, further reflections on when we're going to get, say, 95% of the cases settled. I understand that there will be hard cases that may take longer. Um, but I think a time frame for getting these final cases settled would be in everybody's interest. And if you could allow us to understand what kind of resources deployed on this, then at least we can provide some transparency over whether we think the right level of resource is being deployed.

On getting these settled. I'd be grateful for that. And then just on the 600 000, what is the what are the ideological barriers to getting the 600 zero zero £0 paid up front?

16:42

Speaker 4

-

I think we need to come back to you on that as part one. One on.

16:42

Speaker 1

-

The 600,000. Okay. We're going to organise special hearings on this point alone. If we don't get a clear answer on it. But we're. So we're clear, right?Turning to the other villain in this piece, which is Fujitsu, Mr. Maynard. Yes.

16:43

Speaker 8

-

So far as you say, the government has paid out more than 1.6 billion. Fujitsu is very responsible for a huge amount of the trouble that has gone on here, and yet they have paid nothing so far. Um, when did you last speak to the chairperson of Fujitsu?And why not get them to London and say um read and riot act and say we, we need you to be paying X 100 million.

16:44

Speaker 2

-

Fujitsu has already accepted the moral case for action. We have Sir Winn's report which is going into this. We've already had the first report. The second report will come forward with specific recommendations. Uh, I am hopeful that that report will come this year. And it seems to me appropriate that that is the moment that Fujitsu starts talking numbers.

16:44

Speaker 8

-

Okay. I, I don't understand, given the countries are already paying 1.6 billion, that we have to wait to talk any numbers. Now, I think that conversation can start now. And I don't understand why the government should be picking.

16:45

Speaker 2

-

Well, the government.

16:45

Speaker 8

-

Taxpayers should be paying picking up the bill while they just wait it out.

16:45

Speaker 2

-

Well, the government, as I say, we've commissioned the report. We need all of the detail. And I think we need to see the conclusion of that before we set expectations for the amount. We're talking a short amount of time. Now, I know this has been going on for a long time. This is a very important moment. The the fact is that Fujitsu knows they have accepted the moral case that. For action. But I need to go there with, uh, with the results.

It would be odd for me to, for government to start those sorts of conversations while there is a report that's outstanding that is going to make very specific recommendations in this kind of area.

16:46

Speaker 8

-

I hope they're coming to you, not you're going to them.

16:46

Speaker 1

-

Well, was it raised with the Japanese prime minister when she visited?

16:46

Speaker 2

-

I can't say yes or no. I wasn't involved in all of the conversations with her. I was involved with the trade negotiation, the trade talks, when she was present. I wasn't involved in other conversations.

16:46

Speaker 1

-

Our Japanese allies understand that political level, how important this is to the UK.

16:47

Speaker 2

-

I'm not aware that they've been asked for an interim payment because, as I said, it is my view that we need to because we are now talking a short a relatively short space of time that I am focused on what the final settlement could look like. But I am focused on the conclusion of Sir Winn's report and the finality of this dreadful, dreadful situation.

16:47

Speaker 1

-

Okay. Secretary of State. The service is still appalling. We sent 3000 letters out um at. Two weeks later. Um, in order to rerun the consultation once again. But worse than that, we've now got news published in the Telegraph of what looked like a dividend from one of £114 million from Royal Mail's owner to, um, what is effectively a holding company to service the debt, which was used to buy Royal Mail.

16:47

Speaker 2

-

I've had a brief look at that. Uh, and I don't see the the terms agreed for Royal Mail specifically being breached. And we have an improving service. And if people thought that things couldn't get worse, they could have got a lot worse because it would have been a protracted dispute. On the other end of it. When I called both of them in Dave Ward and Daniel Zelinsky, and credit to absolutely both of them for coming in, sitting there.

But they both agreed to give a months process for which I would lead. So on both universal service obligations and then equalisation, the two really challenging issues. They have now found a way forward that is agreeable to both sides and has been agreed by the board and by, uh, signed off by CW members. So I do get regular updates like you get from your good, uh, your, your good constituents.

16:48

Speaker 1

-

To tell you, they prioritize parcels over.

16:48

Speaker 2

-

So we have an opportunity to see steadfast progress. Both of them. Uh, I'm also. Uh, and, uh, you know, and I'm having open to having conversations with them about what this looks like into the future.

16:49

Speaker 1

-

So I appreciate this, but delivering service improvement is going to be harder, not easier if £114 million has just come out of the business to service a debt raised in order to buy the business. We don't know the interest rates.

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page