Employment Rights Bill (First sitting)
Greg Smith Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Thank you. I turn to Greg Smith to ask the first question on behalf of the official Opposition.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Q
Jane Gratton: Let me just say that there is a lot in the Bill that represents what good businesses are doing already, but there are five areas where we have received concerns from members. First, on trade union access and ballot thresholds, increasing access and making it easier and quicker for unions to call strike action does not mean that the union is representative of the workforce, and does not improve the relationship with employers. From our members’ point of view, it simply makes it easier to reach an end point that nobody wants. They can see nothing in the Bill to reassure businesses that the relationship will be better, so we do not think that there should be any change to union access or ballot thresholds.
Matthew Percival: Our members support the idea of thoughtfully designed and appropriately enforced employment laws—a strong floor of rights that supports fair competition in the labour market. It is not as simple as saying that employment laws are bad for business; lots of them are very good. That is why we have supported a number in the past, as well as a number of the measures in the Bill, very much as Jane said for her members.
Your question encourages me to give a quick checklist of the top issues, in the order that they come up in the Bill. There are a number of areas of concern around the regulation of zero-hours contracts, which has less to do with zero-hours contracts and more to do with the issue of guaranteed hours within contracts—it is low-hours contracts as well.
We get a number of concerns about the removal of waiting days from statutory sick pay. We get concerns around the landing of probation periods during the initial period of employment, which are more about the tribunal risk than the sorts of processes that employers might put in place. It is the cost of demonstrating compliance, rather than having a good process, that is more of a concern.
In the redundancy space, we are quite concerned about the increase in the frequency with which people will be put at risk of redundancy and the greater uncertainty for people in that environment, and that there might be an unintended kickback for workers. In the fire and rehire proposals, there is a risk that we might be making it easier to make people redundant than to change contracts, so we might go too far and not find that landing zone where it is a last resort short of redundancy.
In the industrial relations space, there are a number of concerns similar to those that Jane outlined. A big one is that there has been a lot of focus on the trigger threshold for whether a ballot for recognition should take place. Between 10% and 2% is what the Bill outlines, but the far more significant change from employers’ perspective is the removal of a requirement for a sufficient level of support in the result of the ballot. There is a risk that it could, in the extreme, become a simple majority vote in which hardly anyone votes in a large workforce but it leads to recognition.
Alex Hall-Chen: I completely agree with what has been said so far. I would add that a key fear for us is the cumulative impact of all the 28 reforms in the Bill coupled with everything else that is happening in the employment space. Taken as a whole, the measures make hiring someone riskier and more expensive for businesses. Our research shows that businesses will hire fewer people as a result.
We polled over 700 business leaders on this topic in August and 57% said that the reforms would make them less likely to hire. I would say that the situation has actually worsened since then, given recent announcements around employers’ national insurance contributions, so the cumulative impact cannot be overstated. For the first time since October 2020 our data is now showing that more business leaders expect to reduce their headcount in the coming year than increase it. The Bill is a key reason for that change.
Greg Smith
Q
Matthew Percival: It is very difficult to put a number to it, because there are so many unanswered questions in areas where details are intended to be put into the Bill at a later stage. That leads to a wide range of potential estimates about the impact of a number of the measures. Work we are doing at the moment will give us updated figures on sentiment around a number of measures. We are looking to publish that soon, and I will make sure that we include those numbers in our written evidence.
Jane Gratton: The feedback we have had from members has been concern about increased cost, complexity and lack of flexibility to manage the workforce in the way that a business needs to. Members say that there would be a reduced hiring appetite were this legislation to come in, and that they would be less likely to recruit new employees due to the risk and difficulty, particularly under the day one rights, unless there were at least a nine-month probation period with a light-touch approach. There would be a preference for contractors and temporary staff, again to reduce the risk and avoid legal complications. To give some figures, 38% said that there would be a hiring freeze, 25% said that the Bill would result in less pay, and 30% spoke of less investment in their business. There would be significant risks and costs, particularly to small and medium-sized enterprises.
Alex Hall-Chen: In addition to considering recruitment levels at the higher level, we are also getting feedback about types of recruitment and the impact that the policies will have on that. We have had a lot of feedback, particularly with respect to day one protection against unfair dismissal, that essentially boils down to the fact that, under the current system, employers are very likely to take a risk on hiring a borderline candidate who may not have quite the right experience or qualifications, but they will now be much less likely to take that risk because the cost of getting it wrong will be considerably higher. I think there are really important questions about what that means for people on the fringes of the labour market, especially as those are precisely the people the Government need to get back into work to meet their 80% employment rate target.
Justin Madders
Q
On a more general point, Jane in particular said that a lot of the businesses you represent do a lot of the things in the Bill already. Do you think it is important that we have a level playing field so that good businesses are encouraged to treat their staff properly?
Jane Gratton: Yes. There has been a cautious welcome for some of the measures in the Bill—lots of businesses agree with the sentiment that it is about fair pay, security and non-discriminatory workplaces—but the question is around the proportionality of the changes that are being introduced in relation to the problem that the Government think needs to be addressed. From a business point of view, it is about the additional complexity and, in respect of some of the detail of the measures, the restrictions that the Bill will impose.
For example, on changing the “one establishment” rule, the feedback from members has been, “For every change, will we have to consult all our employees across all of our businesses, even if they are doing completely different things at different ends of the country, with different levels of skill and job role? It is disruptive for the business and unsettling for every employee.” It is about the detail. In principle we all want these things, but the detail of some of the measures and the impact they are likely to have is causing a lot of concern.
Matthew Percival: You are right to say there is a live consultation on a number of measures, and the consultations on a number of things are promised to come but have not started yet. That is why I resisted putting a figure on what it would currently cost, because there is a wide variance in what that could end up being. We are committed to trying to find a landing zone for the Bill that means that the Government can deliver their ambitions, which include the Bill not having a negative impact on the ambitions around growth or the focus today, outside this room, on the “Get Britain Working” agenda and an 80% employment rate. We want to stitch all those things together and find that landing zone.
It is a credit to you and to colleagues that the engagement we have had up until now has led to things like some movement on the recognition of the importance of a probation period. There is so much in the Bill and we have only really scratched the surface in terms of what we have been able to get into the detail of so far. We are hoping that through this process, and as the Bill progresses through Parliament, we are able to give the same amount of attention to the rest of the Bill.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from David Hale, head of public affairs at the Federation of Small Businesses, and Dom Hallas, executive director of Startup Coalition UK.
We must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 10.40 am. Would the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?
David Hale: I am David Hale, from the Federation of Small Businesses.
Dom Hallas: I am Dom Hallas, executive director of the Startup Coalition, which is a lobby group for tech start-ups and scale-ups in the UK.
Greg Smith
Q
David Hale: The impact assessment was quite clear that the bill would be more than £5 billion a year. For example, it did not include any of the consequential impacts on businesses from the changes to unfair dismissal. It merely counted the ability of the Government to change. Changes to unfair dismissal are one of the things that businesses flagged, so £5 billion is very much at the low end of that estimate. You may well have seen the Regulatory Policy Committee say yesterday that the impact assessment as a whole is not fit for purpose.
The only question about the £5 billion, or the £5 billion-plus, is where that cost is borne. Obviously, businesses can bear the cost. People who are not in work can bear the cost, or people who are in work can bear the cost through wages or through lower hours. The £5 billion is a very low estimate, but where that cost falls is the more complex question.
Dom Hallas: The starting point from our perspective is that tech start-ups and scale-ups are unusual businesses—unusual small businesses, frankly. They scale rapidly—they can be growing at 50% or 100% a year. They pay unusually well—disproportionately well. The average salary is in the range of £50,000 to £60,000. They change really fast, because they are scaling and doing things really quickly. They treat staff like royalty—they treat them incredibly well—because it is a highly competitive labour market for technology talent, and they need to be able to hire in it.
That means they really value flexibility. I cannot speak to the £5 billion figure, and the reports out today throw some scepticism on that. What I will not do is sit here today and tell you that this piece of legislation would be disastrous for our ecosystem—clearly not—but what it would do is present a series of speed bumps, a series of bumps in the road, for these kinds of businesses, the cumulative effect of which is to chip away at some of the flexibility that our companies prize.
Greg Smith
Q
Do you think the lack of flexibility, or making the rules more rigid, as this Bill does, and some of the factors that previous witnesses talked about—dissuading people to take on new hires and making the risk of new hires that much greater—will dissuade more people from choosing to leave payroll and start up on their own, whether through self-employment or registering a business?
Dom Hallas: I leave self-employment to one side, but from the perspective of an entrepreneur trying to build one of our tech businesses, the truth is that any number of things the Government may or not do in policy are not necessarily what persuades or dissuades someone from starting a business. The reality is that they are probably going to do it anyway. The question is, are we going to make it harder or easier for them? In truth, what we consistently see—and I think this is where you have the conversations around taxation and the Budget layered on top—is the risk of a number of pebbles in the stream for entrepreneurs that will not prevent them from trying to build their business, because they will crack on and try to do it. One of the things we consistently talk to entrepreneurs about when we ask them about policy is, “What are the challenges you face?” The answer they give far too frequently is, “There are loads of things, but we just have to get on with it.”
I put to the Committee that the question is ultimately how we prevent our policy environment from being seen as a barrier to overcome by the entrepreneur community and the founders who are building these kinds of businesses and creating these kinds of jobs. How do we create a situation that is as open and flexible as possible for them to operate and, therefore, a competitive jobs market that will ensure that the workers are treated really well?
Greg Smith
Mr Hale, do you have a view on that perspective?
David Hale: If the Government had a good process for the Bill, which I do not think they do, we would be exploring what the participation harm is. Part of that is not just whether firms choose to recruit, but who they choose to recruit. On the whether, from a small-business perspective, you might get a contract, you might choose to scale to meet it, or you might not. It is not the case that all small businesses will choose to scale regardless. There is a risk there, and if you increase risk, you lessen the chance that somebody will do that. Part of the importance of participation harm is not just whether, but which people are employed.
We know we have a CV culture in this country. We know that managers at all levels—I am talking not only small employers, but managers in small and large businesses—look down CVs and look for gaps. If people find gaps in CVs, we know that in the UK, they are less likely to feel that that is a risk they can bear. If you add risk to employment, part of the problem is not just whether they take that risk, but who they take that risk with.
Small businesses are currently most likely to take that risk. Small businesses currently recruit most from outside the labour market. If they do not do that—and we know that small businesses are responsive to risk—it is not just small businesses that lose out, but the businesses that in turn recruit from them. Larger businesses might well be more likely to recruit someone who has two years at a small business on their CV or experience doing bar work when they were a student, and they might benefit from the introduction to work they have had. But the whether and who is currently missing from the conversation, and I think that is because we have had such a quick process. That is the main thing. Does the Bill help somebody take that leap? The Government should be making that case. I have not seen a case for how the Bill would help somebody want to recruit more.
Greg Smith
Q
David Hale: There seems to be a big question about whether the Bill should be split up. It is a very large Bill. Overwhelm is the primary response. The second response is, to put it politely, bemusement about what the Government are trying to achieve and how these measures are intended to achieve it. We know the very high level, but the high level does not match the measures. If you are talking about security at work, the Bill does not appear to give extra security at work. There is bemusement about that.
Like most of us, small businesses are scared of getting sued, so there is fear about that. The Bill increases the risk of litigation against small businesses. The next question is about the possible harms of the response to that fear, which are things like the participation harm, harm to the work environment, and harm to individuals and the whole economy from the knock-on effects. I am not sure whether there are 28 or 70 measures—maybe some of you could list them all, but I do not think anyone else could. I do not think a small business would be able to tell you what they are or implement them all at once, so there is a question about whether the Bill should be split up.
Dom Hallas: I agree on the scale point. The Bill has a big impact. The top practical concern from a start-up ecosystem perspective is day one rights and exactly what that means. Obviously, there is an open discussion about the probationary period and exactly how that is going to work. From a start-up ecosystem perspective, the core point is ultimately that you have fast-moving businesses whose needs change, and the experiences of employees change.
The practical impact of the Bill in that area will be that people are less likely to continue to take a risk on someone, even when they have hired them after a probation period, because of the changes the Government are looking at. What we will get is a situation where employees who might be doing well, but not as well as you might hope, are more likely to see their employment terminated at that stage, as opposed to over a longer timeframe, with the business saying, “Well, we can’t take the risk.” So there seems to be a perverse incentive that ends up being created.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Ben Willmott, head of public policy for the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development; Cathryn Moses-Stone, head of policy at the Chartered Management Institute; and Carly Cannings, founder of The Happy Business School. Once again, we must stick to the timings on the programme motion, so this session will have to end at 11.25 am. Will the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Ben Willmott: I am Ben Willmott, and I am head of public policy at the CIPD, which is the professional institute for human resources and people development in the UK. We have 160,000 members, who are mainly HR directors, HR managers and HR advisers working as practitioners in organisations across all sizes and sectors of business. We also have about 15,000 self-employed HR consultants among our membership, who work with tens of thousands of small firms to help build their HR and people management capability.
Cathryn Moses-Stone: My name is Cathryn Moses-Stone, and I am head of policy at the Chartered Management Institute. We are the leading professional body dedicated to raising the standards of management and leadership excellence across the UK. We have more than 220,000 members, and more than 150,000 people are currently studying on one of our management and leadership programmes. Our royal charter defines our charitable mission as increasing the number and standard of professionally qualified managers across the UK.
Carly Cannings: I am Carly Cannings, founder of The Happy Business School. I am a workplace culture consultant, and I help organisations to create happy, thriving, people-centric cultures.
Greg Smith
Q
Ben Willmott: There is no doubt that the cumulative impact of the proposed regulatory changes will be significant. Our members are responsible for making changes to employment contracts and workplace policies to ensure they align with any changes in employment legislation. They communicate any changes to staff and, crucially, ensure that managers have information, advice and, where necessary, training so that they meet any new legal obligations in the workplace.
Of course, we know that there will be a likely increase in the number of tribunal applications, which our members will have to respond to. That has not just potential compensation costs; there are HR and management costs to responding to tribunal claims, even those that do not actually make it to tribunal in the end and those that do not have any merit. Without a doubt, there will be a significant impact on workload.
The other point I want to make is that the time resources spent on those activities mean that employers will not have the time to invest in addressing the skills gap, upskilling staff and supporting technology adoption. That is the other challenge, which may undermine the other productive activities that you want HR and people management specialists to engage in.
So, yes, phasing these measures and really thinking about how they will be implementable is really important.
Cathryn Moses-Stone: Echoing Ben’s last point, which moves the discussion on quite nicely, we know that broadly there is quite strong support for the Bill among British managers. We have polled our managers over the past year and the last month, and in the last month over 75% were supportive of improved workers’ rights as a means to boosting productivity and 65% felt that it should be a top national priority. But obviously these are just changes. We know that they are meant to be the catalyst for implementing better working practices and more improved working cultures; the extent to which they can do that will very much depend on the implementation, which depends on the time and the process that we give to the managers who have to deliver it day to day, on the ground, to get it right.
Our data shows that over 82% of people are accidental managers, which means they go into a management position without any formal management training. If you are expecting them to deliver a whole suite of really complicated reforms, we need to ensure that the consultation period is long enough and that they are consulted in the right ways. Also, things like the fair work agency really have to take into consideration what the legislation means for allowing managers and leaders to upskill to deliver things in the right way, and the agency should not assume ill intent as a first port of call but work with people to understand what it might look like for them in practice, when they deliver it in their organisations.
Carly Cannings: I would probably echo the comments of the other panel members. It is not necessarily a case of splitting the Bill up; it is about giving enough time, and enough time with the detail. On reading the Bill initially, it is quite obvious that there are intentionally large gaps, because they are to be filled by secondary legislation for the most part. It is a case of ensuring that employers have enough time to get used to the changes introduced by the broad brush of the Bill, which should then be followed up with further consultation and enough notice on those changes.
Greg Smith
Q
Ben Willmott: We understand that the changes to the unfair dismissal regime in any new initial or statutory probation period will not come in until autumn 2026 at the earliest—that is the sort of timeframe you need to be thinking about. The other thing is that, because of all the other measures, it would help if you could push that out, as that is possibly the most substantive change that will affect all workplaces. If you could phase in some of the other changes over a longer period of time—say three years in total—that would certainly help.
The other point I have been echoing is that ACAS absolutely needs more resources to support the implementation process. We have called for ACAS’s budget to be doubled to £120 million a year. It is really crucial to support compliance, particularly among those small and medium-sized businesses that we know are more likely to fall foul through accidental non-compliance. They are less likely to know what their employment regulation obligations are and have less resources to adapt to the changes.
Cathryn Moses-Stone: Similarly, we would like to see consultation throughout the whole of 2025, which would be a really nice long period to try to understand exactly what the legislation means for managers. When we are looking at training courses and development for managers and leaders, that does not happen overnight. If there is an understanding that there will be a management gap in some particular area of the Bill, you then have adequate time to try to find the ways to support the people delivering it to upskill, so that they can do it in the right way. Although we cannot give specifics, I think 2026 echoes a decent period of time with implementation.
Greg Smith
Q
Cathryn Moses-Stone: I cannot talk to the specifics of the Bill’s initial cost implications, but I can talk to the cost implications of having really highly trained managers in the workplace. When thinking about general management training, we know that chartered managers, on average, boost a business’s revenue by £59,000. We know that the average pay rise of a chartered manager is £13,000. We see in a lot of our data that there is a direct productivity impact on an organisation from having highly skilled, highly trained managers who are able to implement policies that increase retention, retain talent, boost morale and create a more positive workplace culture, which prevents turnover, which saves a business from losing money.
It probably also comes back to the point that managers need time to get it right and to understand it, so that the burden on their business in the long run is not huge because they have the right amount of time to understand how they will work with their employees so that they do not have to escalate everything to tribunal. The early training period is crucial for the wider cost savings, because we know that there are lots of concerns from businesses on these issues, as well as the broader sentiment of being in support of the Bill.
Ben Willmott: One of the challenges for a business looking to upskill its managers is that that will incur a cost. If we look at the proposed increases in employment costs overall, we see those from the different measures in the Bill and those from the changes in the Budget, which also need to be taken into account. Businesses will have to find the money to upskill and train their managers. That is one reason why we are saying that ACAS needs to be resourced, particularly to help those smaller businesses that are more resource-challenged and have less knowledge and capability around the HR and people-management side of the business, which is so important to this.
Carly Cannings: Ben made a really important point about making sure that small businesses are adequately resourced to deal with the changes. I am, as many employers are—as the statistics bear out—very supportive of raising the standards of employment, and the Bill certainly takes a step in the right direction towards raising standards. The balance that needs to be struck is about making sure that employers, and particularly small employers, are able to cope with the changes.
There are lots of businesses out there already doing really good things, and some of the things in the Bill will be measures, practices and policies that lots of employers already have in place. That is not the case for everyone and, in particular, that might not be the case for small businesses. Echoing Ben’s point, small businesses are more likely to fall foul of the legislation accidentally, rather than intentionally, because they do not have the right access to support and advice in the same way. That is an important point that must not be missed.
Cathryn Moses-Stone: Would it be all right if I added a point? It is true, obviously, that there is a cost to training managers, but that is why we are also really concerned about the proposed defunding of the level 7 apprenticeships, because there will be a huge knock-on impact. Potentially, a huge skills gap could open up in highly trained management across the UK, at a time when businesses are going to be required to know their staff and to implement the legislation in the right way. We are concerned about how that aligns with the development and delivery of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Q
I have a more general question about what you see as the current weaknesses in the employment rights sphere. What do we need to do to give people more protection and security at work? Do you think the Bill addresses that?
Ben Willmott: The introduction of the fair work agency—a single enforcement body—is a positive step forward, but there needs to be further thought about how to improve the labour market enforcement system. We need a long-term strategy to improve labour market enforcement that includes not just a fair work agency but the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Health and Safety Executive, not in a single enforcement body but as part of the strategy. We need measures to improve the efficiency of the employment tribunal system, which we know is swamped, and we need to increase the overall number of labour market inspectors—by international standards the UK is under-resourced on the number of inspectors.
As I have said before, we also need to significantly increase ACAS’s budget so that it can help small firms to comply. If labour market enforcement is about getting the carrot and stick balance right, that is why it is so crucial that ACAS can play that role in helping to raise employment standards. Businesses that are not bad employers—those that are poorly resourced, or might be knowledge-poor or time-poor, particularly micro and small firms—tend to fall foul of legislation because of those issues, not because of any malicious intent.
Cathryn Moses-Stone: I will start with the latter part of the question. We have a lot of data showing the impact of good management practice on both productivity and an improved workplace culture. Much of the Bill falls into that camp. For example, we know that one third of employees have cited negative work culture as a driver for leaving their organisation. That is obviously driven by ineffective management. We know that when managers in organisations have mutual trust and respect with their direct reports, they find that productivity rises. Poorly managed teams have lower motivation, satisfaction and retention. We believe a lot of the elements of the Bill are tied up in driving much of that in a positive way.
The things we are worried about, which echo what I have said before and what Ben has said, come down to implementation—that is, what the fair work agency looks like, how it behaves, how it supports, and how it gives space for managers to upskill. We know that 40% of our managers have expressed some concern about the detail of some of the policy, such as the right to disconnect. For example, what defines business-critical comms, versus just maintaining team comms?
We know that with high-quality management training—helping people to understand how to have difficult conversations, prioritise and have emotional intelligence—people can navigate those things much more effectively in the workplace. Our worry is about what the implementation will look like and about how managers and leaders will be supported in respect of the fair work agency.
Carly Cannings: I think the Bill is about raising minimum standards. As I said previously, a lot of employers are doing a lot of good things. Let us be realistic about the impact of the Bill: it is about raising minimum standards. Cathryn alluded to the bigger picture of creating happy, thriving workplace cultures, and it goes far further than that. This is not a call for further legislation; for me, legislation is about raising minimum standards. There is so much more outside and beyond legislation that makes a real difference to whether somebody has a happy, thriving workplace culture, and the benefits of that culture.
Thank you, Cathryn. You have done a very good job of outlining the things that I see in reality and when working with my clients—the factors that play a part in creating a workplace culture. Like I said, for me the Bill is about raising minimum standards.
Draft Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment of Schedule A2) Order 2024
Greg Smith Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
As the Minister said, this draft statutory instrument was largely consulted on and prepared by the previous Conservative Government, so clearly the Opposition will not divide the Committee this afternoon. I congratulate the Department for Business and Trade, however, on managing to update the explanatory memorandum, unlike a Department for Transport statutory instrument that I responded to the other week, which still listed Guy Opperman, a Minister in the previous Government, as having signed off the declaration.
The measures in the draft Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment of Schedule A2) Order 2024 build on legislation passed under the previous Government. The memorandum that accompanies this statutory instrument directly references historical concerns about fire and rehire tactics, which—I put it to the Committee—the last Conservative Government addressed through the establishment of a statutory code of practice. I gently suggest to the Minister that that should be reflected in the Bill that comes to Committee next week.
In government, we were clear with employers that they must not use threats of dismissal to pressurise employees into accepting new terms, and that they should have honest and open-minded discussions with their employees and representatives. In accordance with the code of practice, businesses must consult with employees in a fair and transparent way when proposing changes to their employment terms.
The Conservatives took the initiative to uphold and secure employment rights. Meanwhile, the Government—this is where some contention sneaks in—seem content with their disastrous national insurance jobs tax on employers and employees, the latter shouldering 76% of the cost according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, and to see businesses struggle and in many cases risk failure all together. There cannot be employee protections without employees in the first place.
Oral Answers to Questions
Greg Smith Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones
The right hon. Gentleman makes a really good point, and I would be happy to have a proper conversation with him about it. Marine renewables are a huge opportunity for us. We can build the supply chains across the country and, of course, Scotland is uniquely placed to take advantage of that. I would love to have a conversation about it.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
When it comes to an industrial strategy, in the Labour Government’s first few months they have effectively shut down UK virgin steelmaking capacity, with no commitments to primary steel in yesterday’s Budget of broken promises. Unlike the United States and the European Union, the Government have failed to protect our car manufacturers against Chinese state aid. They have massively increased the costs to the very drivers of industry—real businesses—of employing people. Should the Government not call it their deindustrialisation strategy?
Sarah Jones
The challenge we have is that we have inherited the worst living standards growth during a Parliament in modern history. We have inherited huge challenges that we have to overcome, but we are looking to the long-term with our industrial strategy—[Interruption.]
Sarah Jones
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) has been paying attention, but we are developing a steel strategy, which the previous Government failed to do, with £2.5 billion of funding. We put a boost of £2 billion into our car industry only yesterday in the Budget, alongside £1 billion for the automotive sector and money for life sciences. We are developing an industrial strategy for the long term for the first time and we will not follow the Conservative party, which let our industries suffer and get to the crisis point that we are now having to deal with.
Greg Smith
The Minister mentions the car industry. Yesterday, after the Budget of broken promises, talking about the industrial strategy, Mike Hawes of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said:
“Delivering that strategy depends on the UK being globally competitive. Additional National Insurance Contributions will put massive pressure on the automotive supply chain which is predominantly SMEs.”
He described the lack of substantive measures to support the new car market as “hugely disappointing”, concluding that,
“the cost will soon be felt in reduced UK investment, economic growth and jobs.”
With such dire warnings so early on, is this not more evidence that Labour just does not get business and that its industrial strategy is in tatters before it has even begun?
Sarah Jones
For a Government who do not get business, it is surprising, is it not, that we got £63 billion of investment through the international investment summit—twice what the previous Government managed after two years of planning it? The Government are working very closely with the automotive industry. We know that the global situation is very difficult and I talk to Mike Hawes very often, which is why we put £2 billion of funding into the Budget yesterday. It is also why we are working very closely with the sector to create the conditions we need to transition to electric vehicles and to protect our industry in a way that the previous Government, frankly, failed to do.
Steel Industry
Greg Smith Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.
I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for securing this debate in Westminster Hall this morning. I also thank everyone who has contributed to it, particularly the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), whose intervention will potentially go down in history as one of the most innovative ways to participate in a debate on steel, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for his superb contribution.
Just a few weeks ago, I challenged the Minister in the main Chamber on the Government’s approach, not just to Port Talbot but to the UK’s entire steel industry, yet just a couple of weeks later we are on the cusp of Scunthorpe steelworks potentially closing completely by Christmas, despite the owner’s clear ask to the Government to safeguard what amounts to thousands of jobs and a vital component of our economic security. If we let Scunthorpe close, on top of Port Talbot, we risk becoming dependent on cheap imports, particularly from China.
Although I understand that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have had some issues understanding their own manifesto commitments of late, surely the Government cannot possibly have dropped their clear commitment to steel in their manifesto. Surely not, given that 90% of Network Rail steel is sourced from Scunthorpe, and that Liberty and British Steel support more than 3,500 highly-skilled jobs there—those people are dependent on the commitment that the now party of government made in their manifesto. I understand that the Government’s talks with the owners have already stalled and broken down—not the best start for the Secretary of State and the Minister. I remind hon. Members that, less than a year ago, when in opposition, the Secretary of State said that the drive for green steel must mean more jobs, not fewer, but the reality on the ground today is fewer jobs in steel in our country.
The Minister knows that Scunthorpe is now the only site in the UK with the ability to produce virgin steel. If she allows it to close on her watch, we will be left open and vulnerable to cheap imports from China, and that must not be allowed to happen. Equally, I understand that the Government are not prepared to support virgin steel manufacturing while new electric arc furnaces are being commissioned and are coming online. Is that correct? If so, how does it chime with the Secretary of State’s previous commitment that decarbonisation must not mean deindustrialisation?
With the import of coking coal due to end this month, and the possible closure of the Scunthorpe plant completely by Christmas, resulting in thousands of job losses, time is running out. The Government simply must get a grip of the situation. The loss of that vital industrial and economic asset will result in 5,000 job losses across the supply chain and the end to steel production for the first time since the start of the industrial revolution.
Given the choice in front of them, the Government must take responsibility not just for Scunthorpe but for the downstream impact on our shipbuilding industry, the defence sector and, as the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness said eloquently, the production of the wind turbines that, on the other hand, the Government are encouraging—in fact, one of their first acts was to end the ban on onshore wind. They cannot have it both ways: if they want to have their cake and eat it, they need to support the steel sector. The Government have already let Harland & Wolff down. Will they do the same with the whole of the steel sector?
The Government’s plan seems to be to divert imports of steel from China through Brazil to give the impression that this is somehow an innovative solution. I am afraid there is nothing innovative about this Labour Government’s approach. They are masking their failure to secure a future for our steelworkers and our economy as a whole, and at the same time they are risking our national security in the face of growing threats from, among others, China.
Jessica Morden
The shadow Minister talked about taking responsibility, but will he take responsibility for the fact that for 14 years we had no industrial strategy, no steel strategy and endless steel Ministers? Labour Members begged to have any kind of strategy for steel. Therefore, the situation that this Government inherited just a few months ago is the responsibility of the previous Government.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham set out, the last Conservative Government took many concrete steps to support our steel sector. I gently remind Members on the Government side—there is no sugarcoating this for Members on my side—they won the election. They are responsible now and have to take decisions for the future of steel; it is no good constantly coming back and trying to do the political point scoring that we have seen time and again in the Chamber. The other side is in charge now, so they can make the decisions. If this Minister wants to stand at the Dispatch Box in a few moments and make those commitments to virgin steel, to steel production in this country, to Scunthorpe and Port Talbot, that will be welcomed by both sides of the House, because both sides of the House want the future of steel to be secured in this country.
What we are seeing on the ground right now is something different, however, because we have returned to the Labour party playbook: scrap jobs, scrap production and become reliant on higher-polluting countries for imports. That is not what I call decarbonisation, so I ask the Minister to come clean. What has gone wrong so early in this Government’s tenure? Why are she and the Secretary of State unable to fulfil their manifesto commitments? Can the Minister explain what will happen to those thousands of jobs in the steel sector across our country? We need the steel strategy now, not a promise of it for the future. Time is running out.
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for reading out a message from somebody watching the debate. We all agree that it is time for action and that is exactly what the Government seek.
I will expand on our plans. The steel strategy will be developed and delivered in partnership with the steel sector and the trade unions, of course. It will work in lockstep with the Government’s industrial strategy. Our intention is to increase our UK capabilities, so that we can create a more vibrant, competitive steel sector. That will turn around the situation we inherited, where— I want to emphasise this—under-investment had resulted in dated infrastructure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), who knows so much about the steel industry, made the point about the efficiency and economy of the new technologies, and why blast furnaces have struggled to make money for the businesses that own them in this country. British Steel’s blast furnaces were built in 1938 and 1954. Both the blast furnaces at Port Talbot were built in the 1950s. They have become incredibly unproductive because they have not been invested in. The new technologies are simply more productive. If we do not keep up with what the rest of the world is doing, we simply will not be able to compete in the market.
We inherited an industry on the brink. Nevertheless, within 10 weeks of coming into Government, we negotiated a better deal with Tata with better safeguards for workers and more money invested in their future. Our £2.5-billion fund for steel will ensure that we have a steel industry for the future. The Government’s ambition is to ramp up investment, strengthen our supply chains and create more well-paid jobs in the places they are needed.
We talk of primary steel. With the help of experts, we will review the viability of technologies for the production of primary steel, including direct reduced iron.
Greg Smith
The Minister just said that she will review the options. I hope this is a binary yes/no question: is there a ministerial direction in the upcoming steel strategy to include a commitment to virgin steel production in the United Kingdom?
Sarah Jones
I think I was fairly clear. We have been in opposition. We want to produce primary steel in this country; the previous Government got us to a point where that is almost impossible without huge investment. We are supplying £2.5 billion of investment and looking, quite rightly, at the best way to spend that to create a viable steel future for this country. We are looking at direct reduced iron as part of our steel strategy, which the previous Government did not do.
The UK’s ambition is to ramp up investment. Many hon. Members talked of the need to procure British steel in this country, and we are now in a situation where 95% of the steel procured by the UK Government for infrastructure is British, if the necessary type of steel is made in the UK. The issue is that we do not produce all the different and right types of steel, so we need to ensure that we use the Procurement Act 2023 as much as we can to drive economic growth in steel.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness on whether the green agenda can drive up jobs—we think that it can. For example, the Korean company SeAH is building a factory in Teesside that will build monopiles, which are the big structures that go into the ocean and anchor wind turbines. It is currently building that structure with 30,000 tonnes of steel from British Steel. We want to get to a point where we are not only building those kinds of factories in this country but using British steel where we can to make the infrastructure.
At the moment, we do not have a factory that makes turbines on the scale that we need for floating offshore wind, but SeAH is building that factory because it has an agreement with RWE, which will be running the turbines that it builds in future. That green job development into wind and renewable energy is driving our ability to build a factory in Teesside to create hundreds of jobs to build those monopiles, and we are using British steel. That is the kind of future that we want to see through the steel strategy; we are looking at those opportunities to bring new steel companies into this country and to find ways to drive up production in this country.
I should address the issues holding us back, as they were mentioned in the debate. China and excess capacity is a huge issue that we should not underplay. China is now the biggest steel producer in the world and its unfair subsidies have led to massive steel over-production, which fuels global overcapacity and drives down prices. That is a global issue with local consequences that makes profitable steel production here in the UK much harder. That key global situation is helping to shape our future steel strategy and we will need to tackle that problem through things like the carbon border adjustment mechanism—CBAM—and ensure that we are working with a level playing field.
Energy prices were mentioned by many Members, and for too long British energy-intensive industries, including the steel sector, have been held back by high electricity costs. Again, I disagree with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness: electricity prices are set by global gas prices and the problem is our dependence on fossil fuels, as well as the fact that we did not mitigate for that situation in this country at all. When all the prices shot up with the war in Ukraine, we were in a worse position than many countries around the world.
The British industry supercharger that the previous Government developed, which the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) mentioned, will bring down electricity costs for the UK’s most energy intensive industries, but we know that we need to go further. It brings down only 60% of costs and there is still a disparity. We believe that, in an unstable world, cheap home-grown green energy is the future. That is what will drive down prices, reduce our exposure to the volatile fossil fuel market, protect bill payers and strengthen our energy independence. Fundamentally, that is what will bring down costs in the long term.
Members also mentioned the challenges of decarbonisation. Tata and British Steel’s plans to invest in electric arc furnaces are driven by market conditions and the desire to reduce their carbon footprint—customers want greener steel. The UK is going to have a CBAM. If we were producing steel in the UK with blast furnaces, we would be massively inhibited because the EU is bringing in a CBAM, so the cost of exporting to the EU would be much higher. We have to deal with the world as we find it, which again is where we disagree with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness. We cannot look back and try to re-create the past; we have to deal with the world as we find it, which means that we have to move towards those more efficient and greener energies.
The EU, where 78% of our steel exports went in 2023—that is worth pointing out—will bring in its carbon border adjustment mechanism in 2027. We rely on exporting a lot of the steel we produce to the EU, and we would be at a massive disadvantage were we to carry on producing steel from blast furnaces. We have committed to a UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, which will give UK businesses the confidence that, when they invest in decarbonisation and electrification, they will not be at a disadvantage. That is important.
On other issues mentioned by hon. Members, I should touch on Scunthorpe, because that is at the forefront of everyone’s mind. No one wants to see any job losses, and everyone wants to see the steel industry thrive. Through our strategy, that is what we want to do. For commercially confidential reasons, which I am sure hon. Members understand, I cannot talk about our conversations with the owners, but I reassure Members that we are having conversations all the time and that we are working unbelievably hard to get a solution for Scunthorpe and to give the certainty that the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham talked about. I completely understand the issue with the instability of the current situation, but all I can say to him is that we are doing all we can to work with the company on what the future will be.
Port Talbot Transition Project
Greg Smith Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. I wish I could say that I am surprised by any of its content, but the media and the press have, of course, been relentlessly briefed on it over the last couple of days.
It is also no surprise that, once again, Labour is presiding over the demise of our steel sector. Output fell by 47% under the last Labour Government, and 56% of jobs were lost. Today’s deal means that 100% of output will go at Port Talbot. An electric arc furnace will take five years at best to get up and running; some suggest that it will be eight to nine years before a single new job is created, if we see any new jobs at all. As the statement says, this is a transition, but it is a heartbreaking transition for thousands of people—a transition from being in work to being out of work. In his discussions with Tata, why did the Secretary of State not take steps to ensure that the blast furnace will not be closed before the new electric arc furnace opens? Is this not the New Labour playbook—scrap jobs, scrap production and become reliant on higher-polluting countries for imports? That is not what I call decarbonisation. I must say, I feel a little sorry for the Secretary of State, who has been dispatched here to announce these spending decisions just a day after Labour’s day of shame on winter fuel cuts for pensioners.
In government, the Conservatives provided a grant of £500 million towards the £1.25 billion invested by Tata Steel, one of the largest support packages in the government’s history. At the time of the last Government’s announcement, that support was expected to save at least 5,000 jobs in the company. We worked with the Welsh Government and Tata Steel to establish a dedicated transition board to support affected employees and the local economy, backed by £100 million in total. Will the Secretary of State provide an update on any of those job projections?
Today’s announcement is notable for the absence of any reassurance or plans for the thousands of steelworkers in Scunthorpe who may not have jobs by Christmas. Equally notable is the Government’s failure, once again, to provide any detail on the domestic production of virgin steel. The Secretary of State says that we will have a steel strategy in the spring, but thousands of jobs, along with production capacity, have been scrapped today.
It was no surprise that last week, during the urgent question on steel, four times, the Minister for Industry failed to commit to safeguarding the future of virgin steel production in this country. I am sure that the Secretary of State does not need reminding that if he allows the Scunthorpe works to close, too, we will be the only G7 country unable to produce virgin steel. That leaves us open and vulnerable to cheap foreign imports, particularly from China. To his credit, he has always argued against offshoring our steel industry. He conceded once that it would be a “fundamental political mistake”. What conversations has he had with the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Defence about the impact of the Government’s new steel policy on our national security and ability to deliver infrastructure? Will he assure the House that he is doing everything in his power to ensure that we do not lose virgin steel manufacturing in the United Kingdom?
For the benefit of new colleagues, the Government, when in opposition, were committed to £28 billion a year of borrowing to fund their decarbonisation plans—a price tag that has magically disappeared, although the target has not. The Secretary of State made promises about that to the steel industry, but where are those promises now? Where is that money? Is he still battling the Chancellor? We know that Labour’s unions are quite successful in squeezing money from the Treasury, so maybe he can send them to stand up to the Chancellor if he is having problems.
The Government have our support in ensuring that the future of steelmaking in this country is sustainable. That goes beyond Tata and South Wales. Only in Labour’s world can the word “improved” mean fewer jobs and higher-polluting imports. When he returns to the Dispatch Box, I hope the Secretary of State will do better for UK steelmaking.
Jonathan Reynolds
I have been a Member of Parliament for 14 years, in which I have seen some interesting political events, but I do not think I have ever heard a contribution with such brass neck. That is quite something, because there is quite a menu to choose from.
Let me explain what I was doing during polling week, in the lead up to 4 July. Parliament was not sitting, and I was shadow Secretary of State. I was going between key seats, as would be expected, negotiating with unions, Tata, my colleagues in the Welsh Government and every relevant body to prevent action that would have resulted in the entire closure of the Port Talbot works on polling day. It was as though the Government had already gone; they were not on the pitch. The first thing I had to do, before I even became Secretary of State, was ensure that there was something there to save, because it would have gone under the Conservative party. [Interruption.] Conservative Members really need to listen, because my contributions are factually accurate, and I will help them to understand the real situation.
The point of the new investment is to save jobs. There will be better terms for the people who are unable to get the new jobs, including better cushioning during their retraining for entry into the rest of the economy. I have explained why it is a better deal, as I hope the shadow Minister has seen. He mentioned media reports; they have not come from my Department, but I appreciate that there were lots of interested parties. The unions and the Welsh Labour Government recognise that this is a better deal. I hope that the Conservative party recognises, on taking a step back from the statement, why the deal will make such a difference.
The shadow Minister mentioned virgin steel. Let me talk about my frustration about that. He will understand that the two blast furnace sites, Scunthorpe and Port Talbot, lose a great deal of money every day. The managers are so fed up with the lack of action under the last Government that they have put timescales on their closure. The simple truth is that I do not have the timeframe that was available to the Conservative party. Moreover, when it comes to Scunthorpe, I do not yet have the carbon capture infrastructure in place that will be necessary for the ideal solution. I would love to be a position to look at the hybrid solution that the shadow Minister put forward—keeping the blast furnaces open while we bring the electric arc furnaces online—but all the time that could have been used to work on that was during the Conservative Government, and they did not do that work. There are therefore far fewer options available to us, and the situation is far more challenging.
Since I became Secretary of State, I have had many meetings with the UK management about Scunthorpe, and have had three meetings, I believe, with Mr Li, the principal shareholder. I also met him when I was shadow Secretary of State. We have been clear that we want a transition in Scunthorpe, and want to put up Government money alongside what the company may offer, but that has to be part of a transition to the future. The workforce and the route that is offered to them has to be part of that.
Even if we are successful in doing that, my frustration is that the options available are very difficult for the area. The solution I would ideally deliver, which could have been delivered by the Conservatives in those 14 long years, is not available. When Conservative Members leave the Chamber today, I hope they reflect on the mistakes they made, their lack of action, the legacy they bequeathed us and, fundamentally, the improvements we have been able to make in such a short time.
UK Steel Manufacturing
Greg Smith Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
“British steel is integral to growth and prosperity”.
Those are not my words, but the words of the now Prime Minister less than a year ago.
“The drive for green steel must mean more jobs, not fewer.”
Again, those are not my words, but those of the now Secretary of State less than a year ago. During the election campaign, he said:
“We cannot…lose the ability to make primary steel.”
But now we see, quite clearly, that Labour’s plans for decarbonisation do in fact mean de-industrialisation, and that the drive for green steel will mean fewer jobs, not more. Under the last Labour Government output fell by 47%, and, similarly, the promises that this Government made just weeks ago to steelworkers in Scunthorpe, Port Talbot and Teesside, and across the country, have been broken.
For weeks the Government have allowed rumour and speculation about the future of British Steel to run rife, while thousands of workers question whether they will have jobs by Christmas. Contrary to what the Minister has said, when we were in government we worked to deliver a more sustainable, long-term future for the steel industry across the United Kingdom, including Wales, through our £500 million commitment to building an electric arc furnace in Port Talbot. Now we risk being the only G7 economy without the ability to produce virgin steel.
I ask the Minister the following questions. Has British Steel indicated to the Government that it will halt its import of coking coal later this year? If so, when did the Government become aware of that? Are they committed to seeing electric arc furnaces in Scunthorpe? What discussions has she had with the owners of British Steel about the possibility that it will switch to foreign imports from China to fulfil its supply chain obligations here in the United Kingdom? What meetings has she had with stakeholders, including Ben Houchen and the Welsh Government, regarding the impact of future announcements on other steelworks across the United Kingdom, including on primary steel production? Communities and supply chains across the United Kingdom need certainty from this Government.
Sarah Jones
It is hard to know where to begin in responding to that. The previous Government allowed steel to run down. The previous Government did not believe in an industrial strategy. The previous Government did not believe in boosting our supply chains. The previous Government did not understand the importance of the steel industry to our national security and the communities we serve across the country. This Government do understand the importance of steel: that is why we are committing £2.5 billion from the national wealth fund, on top of the £500 million set aside for Port Talbot, and we will develop a strategy that enables the steel industry to grow.
The shadow Minister knows that I cannot comment on commercial and confidential conversations that we are having. I can reassure him, however, that we are talking regularly with British Steel, that we are talking regularly with Tata, that we are in deep negotiations with them, that we are talking with the local community, that we are involved with the trade unions—something that the previous Government did not believe in but suddenly seem to think important—and that we will get the best deal for workers and for the steel industry.
It is a shame that we were not in government five years ago, because we are where we are with some of these conversations. The way the previous Government approached industry was to wait for things to get so dire that they had to spend millions of pounds of public money trying to booster something, whereas our approach is to build the industry up and put the right levers in place, and we will see success that way.
Oral Answers to Questions
Greg Smith Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
What we have this morning is another chapter in the growing theme of what the Government said before the election and what they are doing after the election being entirely different things. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked in May about reliance on Chinese EVs undercutting British workers and leaving us exposed, but by July she was talking about the benefits of trade with China. What we have seen in this Chamber this morning is that, while the rest of the world—the United States, Canada, the European Union—is acting on Chinese dominance in the EV market, the United Kingdom Government continue to dither. What is it to be: clear action on behalf of the UK automotive sector, or continued dither and failing to make a decision?
Sarah Jones
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that until recently his party was in government, and inward investment from China grew over four times since 2014, so I will take no lessons from him on these issues. The automotive industry, which I work with closely and meet regularly, has not asked for what he suggested—
Oral Answers to Questions
Greg Smith Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
Over the past two years, UK-US trade has grown 35% from £230 billion to £311 billion, while shared investment between our two nations now totals over £1.1 trillion. In March, following the excellent work of our trade envoy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Sir Conor Burns), I signed a state-level arrangement with Texas. That means that UK businesses now have memorandums of understanding with eight US states with a combined GDP equivalent to a quarter of the whole US economy.
Greg Smith
I am delighted to report that US motorsport giant Andretti has shown a massive vote of confidence in the UK by taking 40,000 square feet of facilities in Buckinghamshire, with another 70,000 square feet on order, and is already employing over 100 people locally in high-tech jobs. That clearly opens up huge opportunities for automotive and motorsport supply-chain businesses on both sides of the pond, including General Motors. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming Andretti to the UK in its bid to get on to the Formula 1 grid, and what more can she do to ensure that automotive and motorsport supply chains can operate on both sides of the Atlantic?
Kemi Badenoch
I was delighted to see my hon. Friend visit the opening of Andretti Global’s new facility in Silverstone last month. I wish it luck as it continues its preparations to enter Formula 1. That investment is another vote of confidence in the world-leading innovation that the UK has to offer. Andretti Global will also specifically benefit from the MOU that we have signed with Indiana, which will enhance our trade relationship in key areas, including advanced manufacturing.
Kemi Badenoch
I remember a time when Labour Members were telling everyone that we should not invest in nuclear, and it is under this Conservative Government that we are investing in nuclear infrastructure. That has only happened under Conservative Governments. The hon. Lady asks about the plan. I would remind her about the global investment summit we had in November, which raised nearly £30 billion in one day. No one is better than our current Prime Minister at delivering inward investment for this country. Business investment is rising, and it is rising because of the policies that he and the Chancellor have put in place, such as capital expensing.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Alan Mak)
I thank my hon. Friend, who I know is a strong champion of aerospace exports in this House. Last year’s autumn statement extended the aerospace technology programme budget by a further five years, with an additional £975 million of new R&D funding from 2025 through to 2030. As part of this vote of confidence in the UK civil space sector, our trade missions and trade promotion activities by my Department and our embassies around the world continue to help companies with export contracts worth millions of pounds.
Oral Answers to Questions
Greg Smith Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Lady raises a significant issue around ensuring that disabled people are able to access employment and are paid properly. We have no plans to introduce mandatory disability pay gap reporting—no plans to introduce disability pay gap reporting at all. Unlike gender pay gap reporting, which is very simple, binary and easy to execute, disability pay gap reporting, like ethnicity pay gap reporting, is very complex. There are a range of disabilities that could not be easily monitored, so I would like to work with her on other areas where we can help to improve the lives of disabled people at work. We do not believe that disability pay gap reporting is the answer.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend is right. Israel’s current relationship with the UK is worth about £6.4 billion, but our FTA is a roll-over of the one that Israel signed in 1995 with the EU. It does not take into account services, digital, artificial intelligence or genome sequencing. There is a lot that we can do. That is why we are working on this FTA. It is a priority for us. As I said earlier, we face many challenges in carrying on negotiations with a country that is at war, but we are working to overcome them.
Oral Answers to Questions
Greg Smith Excerpts(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
At the autumn statement, we announced the decision to extend the growth duty to Ofgem, Ofwat and Ofcom, alongside a series of reforms to the duty to hold regulators to account for delivering growth in the sectors they regulate. We are also currently consulting on proposals to strengthen the economic regulation of the energy, water and telecoms sectors.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but on retained EU law reform, in the June to December 2023 reporting period there were only two regulatory reforms of note, which were on wine marketing and working time calculations; the rest were technical corrections. What steps is she taking to speed up reform of retained EU law to ensure that regulation works for business and enables growth?
Kemi Badenoch
I am glad that my hon. Friend read the report that I sent out this week on what we have been doing. However, I disagree that only two reforms of note have been delivered. We have repealed or reformed more than 2,000 measures. The Port Services Regulations 2019, which were not designed with UK ports in mind, are an example. We have also passed the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 and the Procurement Act 2023. I remind him that that list is what we are using the schedule for, and there are many other mechanisms in the retained EU law programme to deliver on that road map so that we improve our economy and make it more competitive by making sure that our laws are tailored to our economy.