Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

If a chair or chief executive of a FTSE 100 company presided over a culture of rule breaking, broke the law themselves and then said that they would do it again, would that person have the Business Secretary’s support, or would he demand better standards than that in public life?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I think that we deserve and are all well placed and right to demand the highest standards in any profession across any position and in any institution.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I agree, but if the Business Secretary believes that integrity and honesty are important in all walks of life, he should have voted against the Prime Minister last night.

I welcome the Government’s U-turn on a windfall tax, but yet again they say one thing and do another. There is uncertainty about who the tax will apply to, and there is worry that the chaotic nature of the announcement could perversely incentivise investment in fossil fuels over renewables. Uncertainty and botched announcements are a feature of the Government, which is one reason why business investment has been so poor under the Conservatives. When will the Business Secretary offer certainty to businesses on who exactly the Government intend to apply the tax to?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Member will know that issues relating to taxation are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As far as the hon. Member’s windfall tax is concerned, I have always been opposed to such taxes on principle, and I continue to be opposed. I hope that this energy profits levy does not discourage investment; actually, it has features that do attract greater investment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Commons Chamber

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

It is great that my hon. Friend is supporting Rodale and other companies in her area. We know that this is a worrying time for business, which is facing significant increases in global gas prices. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is in regular contact with the energy industry and Ofgem to manage the impact of price increases on businesses. Clearly, we need to look at this in the round, and in the context of the £408 billion that we provided throughout covid to allow businesses such as Rodale to survive.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last October the Secretary of State promised support for energy-intensive industries such as steel, glass and ceramics. His exact words were that it was his

“priority…to ensure costs are managed and supplies of energy are maintained.”

Yet six months later there is still no action, and there was nothing in last week’s spring statement, so when will this promised support be presented?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman will know that support is ongoing. We have the industrial energy transformation fund, which has allocated more than £50 million. We have also supported EIIs—energy-intensive industries—to the tune of £2 billion since 2013, so support is always there and has been ongoing.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

A chemicals manufacturer in Grimsby has been in touch with me this week. Its energy bill last year was £10 million; it has now gone up to £50 million a year. And it gets worse, because as we have heard in questions today, in two days’ time, compensation for the UK emissions trading scheme and the carbon price support mechanism comes to an end, so support is actually decreasing. Will the Secretary of State at least do the bare minimum and reassure firms today that that support fund will be extended?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I will reassure businesses that I engage with that we are constantly engaging in conversations with our Treasury colleagues and across Government to see how best we can use the existing schemes to support industries—the steel industry, ceramics industry and chemicals industry—in this difficult time.

Oil and Gas Producers: Windfall Tax

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for calling me to close today’s debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. Throughout the debate, there has been at least one area where we have had clear agreement: no one has disputed the fact that we are living through a cost of living crisis. Prices are up, real wages are down, taxes are being hiked and growth is stalling. No one has denied that the looming spectre of eye-watering energy bills is now hanging over households and businesses. That is precisely what the motion today seeks to address, with real solutions to the problems people are facing. Many Members across the House have shared examples of the hard choices their constituents are already making, and I am extremely grateful to them for that.

In responding to the debate, I have to begin with the scale of the problem. My hon. Friends are right to say that people are struggling now. I am sure we have all spoken to constituents who are genuinely scared about the impact of sky-high bills. Those people are feeling the pinch now when they go to the shops or fill up their car, but that is mild compared with the storm that is about to hit households this April. If the average energy bill hits close to £2,000, most people I know will feel it very much, and some will not be able to pay.

In closing this debate, I want to respond to the points that have been raised and to say why I believe the interventions that we have put forward and the windfall tax we would use to pay for them are fair, proportionate and necessary. Many Members have lamented the fact that we were in this position to begin with, and I acknowledge that. A decade of poor Government decisions has left us particularly exposed to global gas prices. This Conservative Government were wrong to reduce our gas storage capacity, they were wrong not to proceed with their original plans for better home energy insulation and they were wrong to prevent the further development of some of the most cost-effective renewables, such as onshore wind.

It is also down to this Government that families are having to consider the prospect of rising energy bills alongside other things that will hit their household budgets hard, particularly the very large rise in national insurance scheduled for April this year. Let us not forget that this tax rise will see the poorest subsidising the wealthiest, the north subsidising the south and the young subsidising the old. So with inflation soaring and energy inflation of particular concern, I put it simply to Conservative and SNP colleagues that action is essential. Despite the unholy alliance of Conservative and SNP Members ranged against the motion today, I put it to them that it is a question of how, not if, the Government should intervene.

The Labour plan would save everybody at least £200 off their energy bills. Those who are most vulnerable would receive £600. That most vulnerable group would include all working families with children claiming universal credit and all pensioners in the savings credit group of pension credit. We would pay for that by levying a windfall tax for 12 months on profits from North sea oil and gas companies. We can do this, and we need to do this because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said in opening the debate, given the scale of the challenge, we need to maximise the resources available to alleviate it. In today’s debate we have heard an overwhelming case for that, including in the speeches from my hon. Friends behind me.

We are advocating a one-off, proportionate tax on firms that are experiencing record profits directly as a result of this crisis, to help customers and other businesses secure our economy for the long term. The North sea will continue to be one of the most profitable and attractive places to extract oil and gas from. It will also continue to provide a substantial amount of our domestic supply. No evidence has been put forward today that a windfall tax on those profits, which were never expected or anticipated, would reduce investment or have a negative impact on jobs. It has been done before, by Labour and Conservative Governments, and we can do it again.

I want to give three explicit reasons why such a tax would be in the interests of businesses and the economy as a whole. First, despite the unprecedented squeeze on household budgets, consumer spending is still forecast to grow this year. That is because some households saw a considerable increase in their savings during the pandemic, but if concerns about energy bills and other pressures were to result in consumer spending not growing as expected, we would be in a very difficult position indeed. I think the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) made a similar point in his speech.

Secondly, inflation is high. It is currently being written into contracts as businesses try to protect themselves against future price rises, which means that even if global inflationary pressures diminish, inflation will be baked into our economy for some time. A rise in energy bills of the kind that the Government contemplate would add as much as two additional percentage points to inflation and would have a significant spending cost for the Government.

Thirdly, under our plans, the windfall tax would give us a contingency fund of £600 million to help energy-intensive businesses through the energy crisis. I recently visited Pilkington Glass in St Helens, where the rise in energy prices means millions of pounds in additional costs. If Conservative Members are worried about the impact of a windfall tax on investment, will they think about the cost of not acting for investment in jobs, growth and the future of energy-intensive industries?

I was surprised to hear Conservative Members arguing against the case for cutting VAT on energy bills, given that in many cases they themselves advocated the same policy. The argument that cutting VAT does not help those most in need simply does not hold water. Crucially, cutting VAT is a step that we could take now. Labour’s policy, which would give every household some relief from sky-high bills, would also mean extending the warm home discount, saving those most affected, such as pensioners and low earners, nearly £600. Many Conservative Members are on the record as supporting the measure precisely because of the arguments made in this debate. Claims that cutting VAT is unprogressive and would benefit only the wealthiest simply do not take Labour’s motion and our policy in the round; they are as disingenuous as they are insulting to constituents who are crying out for some help.

The reality is that the Conservatives cannot fix the cost of living crisis, because they are the crisis. They have become the high tax party because they are a low-growth Government. Some of the defences that I have heard today of voting against the motion are as thin as the Prime Minister’s excuses for flouting his own lockdown rules. Labour has shown the leadership that our country needs and delivered a plan to tackle the energy crisis that would take £200 off the average household bill, offer up to £600 for the most vulnerable in the current crisis, including low earners and pensioners, and provide funding to help the energy-intensive businesses worst hit by energy spikes—all fully costed, with a windfall tax on the North sea oil and gas producers that have profited from the price rises.

It is so telling that at no point today have I heard any Government representative outline an alternative or offer a coherent explanation of how the Government will help families. Labour laid out our plan to address the cost of living crisis two months ago, and still the Government have failed to rise to the challenge. We know why: they are too mired in their own scandal to take the action required. They are more focused on saving the Prime Minister than on serving the public.

The performance of this country’s Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box yesterday was quite frankly shameful. The continued dereliction of duty in not facing up to the big challenges of the day, such as the cost of living crisis, compounds that shame. The Government are out of ideas, out of energy and out of time. The sooner they all go, the better.

Economic Crime: Planned Government Bill

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

Let me first acknowledge my hon. Friend’s work on Companies House reform, on whistleblowing, and on general economic crime. He really has a handle on this issue, and his thoughts are always well received.

My hon. Friend is right to say that economic crimes are a significant cost to the economy. It should also be borne in mind that there are victims at the end of these crimes, and that they experience significant distress. We also recognise the national security implications of allowing dirty money from overseas into our financial system. We acknowledge the need for action on economic crime, and the Government have acted. My colleagues in the Home Office and the Treasury have begun reforms to the suspicious activity reporting regime, created the National Economic Crime Centre to co-ordinate the law enforcement response, and reviewed our money laundering regulations and supervisory regime. That review will produce a report by June 2022. We are legislating for the economic crime levy in the current Finance (No. 2) Bill. We are committed to building a framework that will deter such crimes from happening and to providing a framework that will ensure that those who commit such crimes can be held to account.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for his urgent question today.

At the beginning of the pandemic, there was widespread recognition of the urgent need to get money out to support businesses as soon as possible, but what made Lord Agnew’s resignation statement this week so alarming was his criticism of how the Government are handling cases of fraud now we know about them, and the news that the Government may no longer be intending to bring forward an economic crime Bill.

Lord Agnew described the performance of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy as “nothing less than woeful”, and added that it has

“been assisted by the Treasury, which appears to have no knowledge of, or little interest in, the consequences of fraud to our economy or society.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2022; Vol. 818, c. 20.]

To be honest, it is one of the few times in this Parliament that the two Departments have been consistent with each other. These are very serious allegations for a serving Minister to make, and I am worried by what the Minister has just had to say about the economic crime Bill, so let me ask him however about the Government’s intentions in his area and whether its commitments still apply.

First, is it still Government policy to legislate for a register of beneficial ownership of property in the UK, so that we can find out who really owns property in this country? Secondly, will the Government still legislate to prevent abuses of Scottish limited partnerships? Thirdly, will the Government still legislate to prevent the shortcomings in the unexplained wealth order regime highlighted by the recent case in the High Court of NCA v. Baker and others? Fourthly, will the Government still reform Companies House? If the register of British companies was more rigorously checked and policed, there would not have been as many fraudulent companies as there were to engage in fraud when the crisis began. Finally, can the Minister confirm that his Department’s latest estimate of the value of fraudulent bounce back loans is £4.9 billion, and that it is the Department’s intention to write off £4.3 billion of that?

This sorry episode reveals a Government far too casual with wasting taxpayers’ money, but there is also an aspect to economic crime that relates to the probity and integrity of our financial and political systems. I hope the Minister can provide me, and the House, with some much needed reassurance today.

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Our appetite for tackling economic crime remains undiminished, as it does with Companies House reform, which has been well trailed and well considered. We will continue to work in this area, but I cannot pre-empt what Her Majesty will say in the Queen’s Speech.

In terms of the bounce back loans, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), made it clear in the House that HMRC did not produce the figure of £4.3 billion, and the money has not been written off. The figure was an inference by journalists, who subtracted £1.5 billion—the estimate of the amount to be recovered by taxpayer protection—from the £5.8 billion that was estimated as error and fraud in 2020-21. It was publicised before Christmas. Our Department continues to work with our fraud measures with partners in Government, the British Business Bank and all the partner banks who issued this money in the first place.

Misuse of Fireworks Bill

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 21st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Owen]

I wholeheartedly agree. I think that people do not fully understand the impact of fireworks, the changes that have been made to them and how loud they have become. If many people understood what a particular decibel level was and the impact that it would have on the wider radius of their neighbourhood or community, they would perhaps think twice about using them.

I hope that none of us will make a judgment that the veterans charity Combat Stress—or any other organisation that has expressed concerns about fireworks in support of our brave and struggling members of the forces—is trying to ruin anyone’s fun. As I have said, the measures that I suggest in this Bill are common-sense reforms that also show compassion to veterans who have already been through unimaginable trauma.

Of course, it is not only ex-servicemen and women who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Mental health problems are experienced by people from all backgrounds; as a society, we are gradually beginning to recognise how we can adapt to their needs and show sensitivity. I just want to share one example. During the recent lockdowns, in Northwell in Luton North we had some community clear-up days. Neighbours went door to door to involve people in those clear-up days, and there was one house with a garden that was terribly overgrown. They had never seen the person living there come out of the house. Deniece Dobson, who was running that community clear-up and has been an absolute stalwart and leading light of it, knocked on the door—it was somebody who lives four or five doors away from her—and it was the home of a veteran who was suffering from PTSD. She could not go out; she said how distressing the fireworks had been. I am so grateful to Deniece and all the people around her and in that community who took the time and made the effort to clear up and to get to know their neighbour. But to hear that fireworks were having such an impact on someone who served our country was truly worrying.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this Bill forward today. I think the whole House can agree that this is an area where the law has not kept pace with developments, and that what my hon. Friend has put forward is well researched and well argued. Although the timescale of the day means that the Bill is unlikely to proceed, I just wanted to place on the record my thanks and support for the Bill from the Dispatch Box.

[Sarah Owen]

I thank my hon. Friend. I am grateful for everyone’s interventions and support. I think we can all agree that it is crucial that, in taking this legislation or any other relevant changes forward, the Government—I urge them to do this—consult veterans charities and mental health organisations to learn from the people affected about the very real impact that fireworks have on their lives, hear their wisdom and show a willingness to learn. It is clear that there are simple steps, laid out in my Bill, that could go a long way in ensuring that our children, pets, animals, veterans and all our neighbours have a much more peaceful life.

Firework displays can be a really beautiful and joyful spectacle without being so loud that they become medically and mentally harmful. Limiting the noise to 90 dB and reviewing who can sell and use fireworks will go a long way to solving the issues faced by residents in Luton North and thousands of other people across the country. The noise from fireworks is currently unreasonable and unregulated. Thankfully, today we can go one step further towards changing that. I hope that Ministers will work with me and support the measures laid out in this Bill.

Reducing Costs for Businesses

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the strain that businesses are under following a difficult Christmas period and two years of disruption during the covid-19 outbreak; notes challenges are more severe in some sectors; regrets that businesses are struggling with increasing energy costs, high inflation, low growth and higher taxes as a result of the Government’s long-term failures and lack of adequate support; and therefore calls on the Government to reform business rates, to alleviate the debt burden by allowing businesses flexibility on Government loans and to implement a contingency fund to support businesses with high energy costs.

Our motion highlights the strain that British businesses have been under over a difficult Christmas period and acknowledges the further challenges that they will face this year. Most of all, I hope that it will facilitate a discussion about what this country needs to allow British businesses to grow and succeed, in order to ensure our and their future success.

I hope that we can take a moment at the beginning of the debate to recognise the toll that the recent challenging trading environment has taken on many people. When the shadow Chancellor and I met a wide range of businesses just before Christmas, I was struck by the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of many of the people present on the call. The uncertainty and the constant need to reinvent business plans and respond to changing consumer behaviour brought on by the pandemic have taken a toll on many people. The Government’s press conference just before Christmas, in which people were advised not to go out but no support package was offered alongside that advice, was genuinely very difficult for people. It was because of the testimonies we heard that day that we were so insistent that support had to be offered before Christmas. I am pleased that the Government changed course and recognised that additional need.

I am sure that we will hear from hon. Members in this debate the effect of that short-term pressure on businesses in the areas they represent.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Energy-intensive industries, such as those on Teesside, are under the cosh when it comes to the cost of gas, and not just for energy but as a feedstock in the production of a wide range of goods. Does my hon. Friend agree that without action on the highest prices in Europe, on gas transportation costs and on carbon costs, many companies could fail, costing thousands of jobs?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who has put his case as he always does. I will mention energy-intensive sectors later in my speech, but the broader point is that the medium and long-term pressures facing businesses do not look much better than the short-term pressures that they have just come through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am conscious of your warning, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will give way to a couple of hon. Friends.

[Janet Daby]

Rising energy prices have been described as an existential crisis for small businesses in the hospitality sector. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must offer support to businesses in paying their energy bills immediately?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Very straightforwardly, yes. We will talk about some of the specific proposals that the Labour party has developed to help alleviate that pressure.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Like many colleagues, I visited many small businesses in my constituency just before Christmas on Small Business Saturday. Although they were really pleased with the support, they also described the immense challenges they face and have faced over the past couple of years. High energy bills and inflation are clearly having a big impact, but it is set to get even worse with the increase in national insurance we are expecting in a matter of months. Surely my hon. Friend agrees that the Government cannot expect businesses to keep shouldering extra burdens without putting more support in place.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

My hon. Friend is right. There is already a cost of living crisis gripping the country, and it has been brought on by the frightening increases in energy costs and inflation following a decade of poor Government decisions.

It is obvious that this requires a response from the Government. Surely they cannot be considering allowing the average energy bill to hit £2,000. Surely they cannot be willing to see industry halt production or to have inflation hit double-digit figures. Frankly, it has all gone a bit Ted Heath. Where are the Government?

In contrast, we have made it very clear how Labour would act. We would take VAT off fuel bills. We would take off the supplier of last resort costs, too, and we would increase both the amount and the eligibility for the warm homes discount. I regret that Conservative Members have said they cannot vote for that, because Labour’s plan would have saved the average household £200 and the worst-hit households £600. The Government have already rejected that plan today, so please let us hear the alternative. It feels like the Government are asleep at the wheel, or perhaps they are just too bogged down in constant crisis and scandal to get the grip our economy needs.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is setting out a case, but the crucial thing is that the Government have a plan and he has not set out an alternative. So far the alternative sounds to me like extra borrowing. If it is not extra borrowing, where will he get the money to do everything he proposes today?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman is more astute than that. He will have seen the plan to take revenue from the Exchequer windfall and the VAT receipts the Government have already received. We will increase money coming from the North sea oilfield with a windfall tax. He will know the North sea is one of the world’s most profitable jurisdictions in which to extract oil and gas.

There is something else the hon. Gentleman is not telling the House. If the Government allow the national insurance rise to go ahead, that alone is estimated to put two additional percentage points on inflation. He knows that will trigger a range of further Government expenditure, as well as causing major pain to households. With respect, I do not think he has a case.

The businesses I have spoken to this week are understandably worried that a squeeze on households of this scale will adversely affect consumer spending. In addition, as we have heard, businesses are directly affected.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I will give way one last time.

[Matt Rodda]

I will be brief, as I appreciate the pressure on my hon. Friend’s time. He is absolutely right to point out the link between household expenditure and businesses. In Reading and Woodley many businesses in the hospitality sector’s supply chain have been badly affected. We have a thriving microbrewery industry, and these hard-working brewers are badly affected by rising energy prices, and they have been badly affected by the difficulties that affect the whole hospitality sector, but they have received less support from the Government. Does he agree that the Government need to listen to businesses and to think about the whole business community, not just certain parts of it?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I love it when Members bring testimony from their own constituencies about specific sectors that have been affected. In the urgent question we had before Christmas, a lot of people mentioned coach companies, for instance, which were not at the time getting the national coverage they deserved. I thoroughly agree with the point my hon. Friend has made that businesses are directly affected by energy costs too, because they are seeing their bills go up while revenue goes down. That is clearly the case for energy-intensive industries, for which out-of-control energy hikes are simply unaffordable.

I am absolutely adamant that great British industries such as ceramics, glass and steel must have a future, but I recognise that that will not happen without political commitment. Many of us here are from places that take real pride in our industrial strength and heritage, and there has to be a future for these industries not least because, although their domestic carbon footprint is high, if we compare them with foreign competitors they are usually among the most efficient in their class. We cannot attempt to hit net zero simply by letting industry, emissions and jobs go overseas. That is why we have proposed a £600 million contingency fund to support energy-intensive industries, and we have laid out a plan for green steel, promising to fund pilot projects using hydrogen instead of coal for production and to joint-fund new equipment so the sector can grow.

However, if we want to keep these jobs and firms, it will require the public and private sectors to work together, and that brings me to the long-term challenges facing businesses because in many ways that is the most concerning picture of all. Right now, every economic indicator we have is heading in the wrong direction. The forecast for long-term growth is poor, productivity growth is appalling, wages are stagnant, and inflation is high and rising.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I will proceed.

I know many Government Members are uncomfortable hearing it, but it is true to say that the Conservatives have become a high tax party because they are a low growth Government, and there is no plan that I can see to change that. In fact, most of the decisions the Government take tend to make things worse. Raising taxes, failing to deliver on transport promises and tearing up the existing industrial strategy are not the ways to increase productivity, growth and wages.

We used to talk about the danger of industrial strategy being the Government trying their hand at picking winners. This Government’s strategy is better described as kicking winners. Not a week goes by without some Government Minister trying to drag our world-class universities into their desperate culture wars, instead of recognising the pioneering research that, among other things, gave us the vaccine. There is the Brexit deal the Government negotiated that delivered none of the market access our financial services industry asked for, and which has put bureaucracy and red tape in the way of British exports.

If we are to meet the challenges of the future, it will take a lot more ambition than this Government have so far shown, and it will require a change of course in several areas. It will require reforms—significant reforms—such as the replacement of business rates that we have proposed, and policies that incentivise long-term growth and investment over slogans such as levelling up, or unproven flights of fancy such as freeports.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and really pleased to come in when he is talking about business rates because for both the hospitality sector and the retail sector—two sectors that are crucial in my constituency and so many others—business rates are one of the biggest barriers to growth and to survival.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am particularly pleased I gave way to my hon. Friend because I drive through Chesterfield when I am going from Stalybridge to London, and I pay tribute to him and his local colleagues for the work they have done. He is absolutely right that our promise on business rates is to replace an outdated system that does not work with one that is fit for the future. That means rebalancing rates so that bricks-and-mortar businesses do not lose out to online firms and making sure we encourage, rather than disincentivise, investments in new plant and machinery.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

No, I am going to proceed. [Interruption.] Okay, go ahead—I give way.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Just to make a point of detail about the context, the hon. Gentleman talks about runaway inflation in the UK, but does he accept that these are international problems? The inflation rate in Germany is actually higher than in the UK at 5.3%, and the inflation rate in the US is 6.8%, which again is much higher than in the UK. Shall we have some facts in this debate, rather than some of the rhetoric coming out from his speech?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I always have time for the hon. Member, so I am not sad that I gave way to him. Yes, as we come out of the pandemic there are pressures on the global economy—we can see that in supply chains and in inflation. The question for the hon. Member is this: seeing that global picture, are the Government right not to take action, but to add further to the problem? We can see the impact on domestic energy prices, to which we are uniquely exposed because of his party’s Front Benchers. Is that the right course of action, or should we follow the route that the Opposition are putting forward, which I respectfully say is a much better proposition?

We are fortunate to live in a country where we have world-leading industries, but we agree that our productivity has stalled, that too much work is low-skilled and low-waged, and that prosperity is not shared in every community. With the right leadership from Government, I believe that many of our problems and challenges could be overcome.

The Opposition motion clearly sets out the action that the Government could take now: freezing and replacing business rates, saving the average shop or small factory £4,000 this year; alleviating the debt burden on firms, allowing them to pay back some Government loans when they are more profitable; not going ahead with the national insurance rise, which is a tax on jobs for employers at the worst possible time; and introducing a £600 million contingency fund for businesses, particularly in energy-intensive sectors, to address spiralling energy costs.

Where the Government have left the pitch, Labour will back businesses to keep British firms competitive. We need a Government who can match the vision and dynamism of British business, which we are ready to do. Labour is unashamedly a pro-business, pro-worker party. The leaders and entrepreneurs I speak to—[Interruption.] Quiet, Secretary of State! They do not want handouts from the Government; what they want is a level playing field and an environment they can do business in. They want the state to take the long view and provide the foundations that they need for success, and that is exactly what Labour will offer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register.

I have great respect for the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). He deserves to sit in the front rank of his party, but I have to differ from him when he says that this Government have provided inadequate support to the business sector. I take him back to 2010. Both parties have faced a crisis; Labour had the financial crisis, we have had the pandemic. Both parties have had to spend hundreds of billions of pounds to prop up the economy. But back in 2010, when I became Employment Minister, unemployment was 2.7 million and the pressures were all upwards. Today, in the wake of the pandemic, having just before the pandemic managed to get unemployment back to the levels of the 1970s, and having feared that the pandemic would take us back to where we had begun, actually we have ended up, as we are, I hope, coming to the end of the pandemic, with unemployment heading down towards 4% and hopefully below, and significant numbers of vacancies in our economy. That has happened because Ministers took the right decisions at the right time and targeted their support in the best possible way. It is not possible to do everything for everyone—

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I share the mutual respect that the right hon. Gentleman kindly outlined at the beginning, but he will accept, because this is his background, that there are 1 million fewer people in the labour market than pre the pandemic. Yes, unemployment has gone down, but of course the participation rate has gone down; it is not because those people have simply transferred across. The huge worry right now, and what is leading those shortages, is that participation has fallen. That is the true picture, surely, is it not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

As the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) knows, I entirely agree with her about the need for an independent Northern Powerhouse Rail that goes through Bradford from Leeds to Manchester. However, I do not agree at all with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). In his motion, he talks about

“increasing energy costs, high inflation, low growth and higher taxes as a result of the Government’s long-term failures.”

I have a great deal of time for him, but he is absolutely wrong on all counts. On energy costs, the wholesale price of gas has increased tenfold in little over a year, but that is an international issue, not domestic policy. I agree that we need to do something about it, but the tenfold increase is principally because of Russia and China, for different reasons.

Inflation is an international issue, too. As I have pointed out previously, the inflation rate in Germany is higher than that in the UK—it is 5.3% compared with the UK’s 5.1%. There is a slightly different calculation for the US, but the rate is 6.8% versus the UK’s 5.1%, so the hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong again. He is also absolutely wrong about low growth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) points out, the OECD says that the UK had the fastest growth in the G7 in 2021, and that it will have the fastest growth in 2022.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I know that I am pushing my luck by intervening, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not mind.

This is interesting, because when we had a global financial crisis, I do not remember Conservative Members highlighting global factors as a cause. On that point, he will know that we had the biggest hit in the pandemic; we fell the furthest. When we say that we have a projected high growth rate next year, it is because we are bouncing back. The long-term growth rate for this country is under 2%, and under the historical norm for each of the years that we have forecast for once we have recovered from the immediate hit of the pandemic. That is the point. That will not succeed in sustaining the living standards of this country, and the hon. Gentleman knows that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on long-term productivity, but that is not what his motion says. It says “low growth”, which is absolutely inaccurate. Let us have some facts in this debate.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on energy costs, and I think that we need to intervene. The Government are not doing nothing. They are consulting now on the right kind of measures—whether it is VAT for consumers, the warm home discount, or direct intervention in the business. It is absolutely right that we consult on those things and look at them properly. There are other issues as well, including labour costs, supply chains and other such things, the vast majority of which are international issues. Yes, of course, there are some Brexit issues, too, there is no doubt about it. [Interruption.] Anybody who voted for Brexit and thought that they were voting for the status quo was not reading the facts properly. The reality is that those things have to be dealt with, but they are short-term issues that will be resolved.

I say to the shadow Minister that it is the easiest job in the world to stand on the sidelines and criticise, which is what he is doing. [Interruption.] He is criticising higher taxes. How on earth would he pay for the huge amount of money that has to go into the NHS over the next few years to deal with the backlog? Would he simply borrow more money? That is what that money is for. There is also the fact that businesses are not even paying the higher taxes yet; they do not kick in until April. Again, the motion is entirely wrong.

Let me turn to what we should do. The motion mentions the reform of business rates; the solution of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde is absolutely deluded. A sixfold increase in the digital services tax would be passed straight to consumers and would not hit Amazon and others. It is absolutely wrong. He has no long-term detail on how he would reform business rates. In my view, we should scrap the business rates system completely. It is outdated—it is the wrong system for today—and business rates hit not just retail but lots of other channels and sectors. I would scrap business rates completely and find the £30 billion by adding that to VAT, because that would immediately create a fair and level playing field for all businesses that trade through whatever channel.

While the Minister is present, I press him to look at regional mutual banks, which I mentioned at Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions this morning. They can have a massive impact in lending to the productive economy to get the growth rate growing to the level we need it to be to pay off our debt.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

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

As my hon. Friend knows, a decision has not yet been taken on the outcome of the timetable consultation. Transport connectivity is largely an issue for other Departments, none the less we appreciate the importance of connectivity and infrastructure. We know that my hon. Friend will be an absolute champion of that—he has done a huge amount in his short time in this location.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the tribute that the Secretary of State just paid to our friend Jack Dromey, who was a great champion of British industry and of British workers and simply an all-round great man.

Over the last decade, Conservative Ministers cancelled the zero-carbon homes programme, banned onshore wind development, launched the eco-insulation programme and tore it up within one year. They reduced the UK’s gas storage capacity and at one particularly silly moment, the current Foreign Secretary claimed that solar panels were a risk to domestic food production. All those decisions have made this country more dependent on volatile wholesale energy prices than we otherwise would be. We know that means that there is an extremely difficult situation for British households, but it also risks making large swathes of British industry uncompetitive. The Secretary of State says that he is working hard, so what is his plan?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman take his place. I remember him being a prominent member of the economic team under the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I am glad to see that there is life after death and that he is here today. My only regret is that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) is not here. I am afraid that the split of net zero from business shows that Labour is not serious about the energy crisis. It is not serious about placing net zero in the context of business and growth and it is completely off the pace in terms of driving clean—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Jonathan Reynolds. [Interruption.] Sorry, sit down and I will just explain once again. These are topical questions. They are not meant to have a “War and Peace” answer. I want to get Back Benchers on both sides of the House in. You are taking their time.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

There was a lot of talk from the Secretary of State, but no answer. However, let us take up the point that he made. Earlier, one of his Ministers gave me an answer about UK steel production. The Secretary of State talks about net zero, but that cannot be achieved by exporting UK industry and jobs. We have pledged £3 billion of investment in steel, which would match fund pilots in hydrogen in place of coal and joint fund investment in electric arc furnaces. Domestic steel is essential to net zero; it is relevant to levelling up because it provides the jobs and the wages in many parts of the country; and it relates to Brexit because our producers now pay higher tariffs than companies in the EU to export to the US. Net zero, levelling up and Brexit amount to the Government’s entire agenda, so Secretary of State, again—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Do you not both understand? Your Back Benchers are desperate to get in. If the shadow Secretary of State wants to come in, he should be brief. If not, he should come in early when he has got more time. Secretary of State, briefly.

Postmasters with Overturned Convictions: Settlement Funds

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and for providing advance sight of it before he came to the Chamber.

I believe we are in unanimous agreement across the House that the Horizon scandal has been a shocking injustice. In fact, I believe it is no exaggeration to say that it is one of the greatest scandals of modern times. It is a scandal that has blighted the lives of hundreds of sub-postmasters, but also their families and those who have worked with them. I join the Minister in paying tribute to those postmasters who have been relentless in their quest for justice, as well as all those in this House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), and, in the other place, Lord Arbuthnot, for their work in this area.

Given that forensic accountants first went in to discover the truth in 2010, the Minister will appreciate how frustrating it has been for many people to see how protracted this fight for justice has been. Innocent hard-working people wrongly spending time behind bars is simply unconscionable, but to add insult to injustice, the Post Office then attempted to cover up its mistakes by shredding documents and then attempting to bury those seeking justice in endless legal battles. There is, frankly, no condemnation strong enough for such behaviour.

The Government are right to make this announcement. However, I think we must be clear that the Government are not paying this compensation out of the goodness of their heart, but quite simply because there is no other choice to take, given the unambiguous position and the finding in the Court of Appeal. Although we welcome the announcement, I want to press the Government on some key matters that I think need resolving to ensure that all those affected receive the compensation they deserve and that nothing like this can ever happen again.

First, will the Minister confirm that compensation is for everyone, including those who had civil as opposed to criminal processes against them? Surely the Government accept that justice must be available to all affected, not just those who faced criminal prosecution. Further, how many settlements does the Minister envisage being made in totality?

Secondly, will the Minister confirm that the compensation will not affect the Post Office’s core funding, day-to-day operations or viability in any way, given the vital role it performs in all our communities?

Thirdly, the Government must acknowledge that all those involved in the initial mistakes and subsequent failures must also bear some responsibility, so will the Minister confirm that none of those involved have been rewarded with top senior jobs elsewhere?

Fourthly, as the Minister referenced the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, what information can he give the House on the likely timescales that we can expect for further information as to its findings and report?

The shattering reality of this scandal will be felt in families and communities for years to come. The Government have made and taken the right step today, but I believe it will be one of many if we are ever to make amends for this most insidious injustice.

[Paul Scully]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. He is right that we are not making the funding available from the goodness of our heart; we are doing so because it is the right thing to do. I do not think anybody—as well as being a Government Minister, I am a constituency MP and a human being—can read these cases and listen to those involved, and fail to be moved by what has happened over the last 20 years. The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions, so let me try to go through those.

A number of schemes are available, including the historical shortfall scheme, which the Post Office made public and wrote to a number of people about. About 2,500 people came forward, which was more than the Post Office thought would. That scheme is going through its process at the moment, and the Government are ensuring that it is pushed forward as quickly as possible. The Post Office has also written to 640 postmasters whose prosecution is believed to have had Horizon as a primary part; we will see what happens in terms of people coming back from that. The Court of Appeal will work through those appeals and the Post Office will go through the compensation process.

On the 555 who pioneered this work, I have said in my conversations with them and in correspondence that the settlement was full and final. However, I recognise what they have done and that none of this would have been possible without their work, and I will continue to work with them to see what we can do.

On the core funding that the hon. Gentleman talked about, this money is from government—it is from taxpayers—and it is separate. We have not paid for the Post Office’s litigation costs. Compensation will not come from core funding.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the time of the inquiry, and I would expect Sir Wyn Williams to give an update on that as soon as possible. Clearly, we want it to go through as quickly as possible, but we want to make sure it is thorough. There is a lot of documentation and complexity after two decades, as the hon. Gentleman can imagine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

As long as it is related to the previous statement.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

It is. My hon. Friend for North Durham—

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Right honourable Friend.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

My right hon. Friend—it has been a busy week—did, of course, play a major role in the postmasters’ campaign. He was quite right to object to my failure to mention him, and I would like to apologise to him for that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is not entirely a point of order or a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has put his thanks and his apology on the record.

Subsidy Control Bill

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a privilege to come to the Dispatch Box for the first time as the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. This is an important Bill. On the face of it, it is a technical matter, as our exit from the European Union and single market means that a replacement for the former state aid rules is a legal and practical necessity. However, the debate we have had about how the new regime will be used shows that it is much more important than that.

I thank all hon. Members who have worked on the Bill, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for their work in Committee. I repeat the Secretary of State’s thanks to all the Clerks and ministerial officials for getting it ready.

The current Government’s economic record sadly combines the worst of everything. Our long-term growth forecasts are low, our taxes are high, our productivity is appalling, inflation is growing and our trade is shrinking. In short, the Conservative Government have created a high-tax, low-growth economy, so the country needs a plan for growth if we are to generate the living standards and public services that the British people rightly expect. Therefore, how the powers and responsibilities that are contained in the Bill will be used is of major interest to us all.

I want to see some ambition from the Government—not just big talk, but real delivery. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have tried to tease out the outlines of their strategy, or some indication of their plans, but we are none the wiser, mainly because they do not seem to know what they want to do. For any industrial policy to be successful, its focus must be the long term and its fundamental objectives should be cross party to give industry and firms the reassurance that they need to invest for the future.

This Government cannot even agree with what former Conservative Governments proposed and adopted as policy just a few years ago. I have still heard no clear reason from them as to why the previous industrial strategy and bodies such as the Industrial Strategy Council have been abolished. It smacks of the fundamental short-termism and lack of seriousness that infects the whole Government. That matters because for the powers contained in the Bill to work, they have to be a part of a coherent strategy. I do not believe that we have that.

I do not believe in corporate welfare; it is not the Government’s job to bail out firms that are not viable or to distort fair competition in markets. But I do believe that there is a huge role for the Government in partnering with industry to meet our national objectives, particularly on net zero. A good example of where that support is needed is our energy-intensive sector, which has a significant carbon footprint domestically but which compares favourably to the same industries in other countries when international comparisons are made. I want to see from the Government a coherent and effective strategy to use the powers in this Bill to support these industries because, without that, all we will do is offshore our emissions by making these sectors uncompetitive. At present, we have a Government who are willing to intervene, but whose approach is best described as completely scattergun. I know some Conservative Members are converts to economic intervention, but they have skipped the part where that intervention needs to be driven by purpose, rather than short-term political expediency. Michael Heseltine put it best when he said that the Government appear to have “no coherent approach” and the Prime Minister is just

“lurching from crisis to crisis.”

That is harsh criticism, but it is fair.

In many ways we will not be able to judge the success or not of this legislation until we have learnt more about how the Government intend to use it. Quite simply, the Government must do better. If they had taken our amendments, and those of other colleagues here today, on board, that would have substantially improved what we are being presented with on Third Reading. It would have given us greater transparency to show where public money is going and a commitment that any subsidies help the UK achieve the net zero targets, and ensured that the nations and regions have the powers they need to make the new regime a success. It is a real regret that those amendments are not part of the Bill, but I hope members in the other place will take these arguments up.

To return to my opening remarks, although the Bill is not the one we would have proposed, it is clearly a necessity. We will therefore not be opposing it on Third Reading. However, in the months and years ahead, it will only have meaning for the British people if it is combined with the kind dynamic and coherent policy agenda that so far has eluded this Government at every level.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore]

Online piracy of any content is a key concern for the Government. We are aware of the specific issues with beoutQ and raised the matter with the Saudi Arabian Government. We will continue to make representations about its alleged infringement of UK creative content and support efforts to tackle piracy, wherever it occurs. However, the White Paper is to have a targeted approach that focuses on harms to individuals; it is not about economic harm to businesses.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is not just in intellectual property where we need better legal protections. My constituent Mr Michael McGrory of Stalybridge recently took his employer to an employment tribunal for unauthorised deduction of wages, for breach of contract and for disability discrimination. He won his case but, rather than pay up, the company went into liquidation. The same directors set up the same business in the same premises under a different company registration and name. As a result, Mr McGrory cannot get his award enforced. Does the Minister agree that that is wrong? If so, how might we change the company formation process to stop that happening?

[Chris Skidmore]

I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. Obviously, we provide funding for the police intellectual property crime unit, which has seen 94 investigations and arrested or voluntarily interviewed 106 individuals recently. The maximum criminal penalties for copyright infringement have increased since 2017 from two years to 10 years. We are determined to do more, which is why we have a conference with the World Intellectual Property Organisation in London on 18 and 19 June, because we need an international response. I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale): this is an international issue, and we need to ensure that we take action.