23/01/2017

:00:00. > :00:00.it. The noes have it. Order. Urgent question. Can I ask the Secretary of

:00:00. > :00:07.State for defence if he'll make a statement on the test firing of a

:00:08. > :00:15.Trident nuclear missile in June 2016.

:00:16. > :00:25.Mr Speaker. In June last year, the Royal Navy conduct aid demonstration

:00:26. > :00:31.and shake down operation designed to certify HMS Vengeance and her crew

:00:32. > :00:37.prior to their return to operations. This included a routine unarmed

:00:38. > :00:43.Trident missile test launch. Contrary to reports in the weekend

:00:44. > :00:48.press, HMS Vengeance and her crew were successfully tested and

:00:49. > :00:55.certified as ready to rejoin the operational cycle. We do not comment

:00:56. > :01:01.on the detail of submarine operations. I can, however, assure

:01:02. > :01:06.the House that during any test firing, the safety of the crew and

:01:07. > :01:12.public is paramount and is never compromised. Prior to conducting a

:01:13. > :01:18.Trident test fire, the United Kingdom strictly add meres to all --

:01:19. > :01:21.adheres it all relevant treaty obligations, notifying relevant

:01:22. > :01:27.nations and other interested parties. Here, the chairman of the

:01:28. > :01:30.Defence Select Committee, the Opposition defence spokesperson and

:01:31. > :01:36.the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee were informed in advance.

:01:37. > :01:40.I can assure the House that the capability and effectiveness of the

:01:41. > :01:46.United Kingdom's independent nuclear deterrent is not in doubt. The

:01:47. > :01:52.Government has absolute confidence in our deterrent and in the Royal

:01:53. > :01:59.Navy crews who protect us and our Nato allies every hour of every day.

:02:00. > :02:06.Can I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. He will know that I

:02:07. > :02:11.am one who is a strong believer in this country's independent nuclear

:02:12. > :02:15.deterrent. In recent decades there have been major inroads made to

:02:16. > :02:20.transparency of nuclear issues amongst the public. An important

:02:21. > :02:23.message in terms of maintaining the consensus and support of our

:02:24. > :02:28.independent nuclear deterrent. Included in that has been the

:02:29. > :02:32.openness and publicity about the test launches in Florida. Can I ask

:02:33. > :02:38.the Secretary of State with regard to the latest test, will he, he will

:02:39. > :02:40.have seen the press at the weekend, the cla claimsthat the missile

:02:41. > :02:47.Veered off towards the United States. Could he confirm whether

:02:48. > :02:50.that was the case? Could he tell the House when he was first informed

:02:51. > :02:55.there was a problem with the test and when his department informed the

:02:56. > :03:01.then Prime Minister, David Cameron, of the problem? Could he also say

:03:02. > :03:04.whether it was him or the Prime Minister, David Cameron, at the

:03:05. > :03:09.time, who took the decision of his department to shelf the customary

:03:10. > :03:14.practice of pub list sizing the test and ordering a news blackout?

:03:15. > :03:17.Finally, could he also say what discussions he has had with the

:03:18. > :03:23.present Prime Minister about this test and why it was not relayed to

:03:24. > :03:26.Parliament before the debate on successor submarine programme last

:03:27. > :03:32.July. Can I finish by paying tribute to the members of our armed forces

:03:33. > :03:36.who for the last 48 years have maintained operation relentless,

:03:37. > :03:43.which has maintained our continuing at-sea deterrent. I'm grateful to

:03:44. > :03:46.the honourable gentleman. I do appreciate that he's not only takes

:03:47. > :03:50.a very close interest in defence and has borne responsibility for the

:03:51. > :03:54.defence of our country and is a supporter of the deterrent. I have

:03:55. > :03:57.to say to him, though, that I disagree with him on his call for

:03:58. > :04:05.greater transparency in these matters. There are very few things

:04:06. > :04:09.that we cannot discuss openly in Parliament, but the security of our

:04:10. > :04:15.nuclear deterrent is certainly one of them. It has never been the

:04:16. > :04:20.practice of governments to give Parliament details of the

:04:21. > :04:27.demonstration and shake down operations. There have been previous

:04:28. > :04:34.examples where some publicity has been decided on a case by case

:04:35. > :04:45.basis, informed by the circumstances at the time and by national security

:04:46. > :04:50.considerations. # Would my right honourable friend agree with me

:04:51. > :04:56.there is absolutely no evidence of suss tomorrowic failure anywhere in

:04:57. > :05:00.the system? And would he confirm that he, like me, has total

:05:01. > :05:07.confidence in our Trident defences as being both deadly and reliable? I

:05:08. > :05:14.can certainly confirm that. I repeat to the House that HMS Vengeance

:05:15. > :05:20.successfully certified and has passed the test that was set and has

:05:21. > :05:29.therefore rejoined the operational cycle and is part of that

:05:30. > :05:32.operational cycle today. Mr Speaker, I'm grateful to the Secretary of

:05:33. > :05:36.State for his answers. But I'm just sorry that it's taken allegations in

:05:37. > :05:42.a Sunday paper and an urgent question to bring him to Parliament

:05:43. > :05:46.this afternoon. Let me be clear, we are not asking the Secretary of

:05:47. > :05:51.State to disclose any sensitive or inappropriate detail. All we want is

:05:52. > :05:56.clarity and transparency. Because yesterday, the Prime Minister

:05:57. > :06:01.refused four times on live television to say when she became

:06:02. > :06:05.aware of the details of this missile test. Today Number Ten admitted that

:06:06. > :06:10.the Prime Minister was told about this incident as soon as she took

:06:11. > :06:15.office. Yet when she came to this House on July 18 to call on members

:06:16. > :06:19.to back the renewal of Britain's nuclear submoo reerns, she did not

:06:20. > :06:23.say a word, not a single word. Mr Speaker, this is just not good

:06:24. > :06:29.enough. The British public deserve the facts on a matter as important

:06:30. > :06:32.as Britons nuclear deterrent. They deserve to hear those fact from

:06:33. > :06:35.their Prime Minister, not in allegations sprawled across a Sunday

:06:36. > :06:38.paper. Can I ask the Secretary of State a simple question: Why was

:06:39. > :06:42.this information deliberately kept from Parliament and the British

:06:43. > :06:47.public? Who made the decision to keep this incident quiet? Was it his

:06:48. > :06:53.department or was it Number Ten? Whilst respecting the limits of what

:06:54. > :06:56.he can disclose, can he set out what investigation his departments has

:06:57. > :07:01.carried out into what happened in June? And what assurances can he

:07:02. > :07:06.give there will be no future cover ups on important matters like this.

:07:07. > :07:09.Mr Speaker, at the heart of this issue is a worrying lack of

:07:10. > :07:13.transparency and a Prime Minister who's chosen to cover up a serious

:07:14. > :07:19.incident rather than coming clean with the British public. This House,

:07:20. > :07:25.and more importantly the British public deserve better. Let me just

:07:26. > :07:33.be very, very clear, neither I nor the Prime Minister are going to give

:07:34. > :07:41.operational details of our submarine operations or of the systems and

:07:42. > :07:45.subsystems that are tested through a demonstration and shake down

:07:46. > :07:48.operation. She asked me very specifically about the Prime

:07:49. > :07:52.Minister's knowledge. Let me again be clear, the Prime Minister has

:07:53. > :07:58.ultimate responsibility for our nuclear deterrent. She is kept

:07:59. > :08:03.informed as to how the nuclear deterrent is maintained, including

:08:04. > :08:10.the successful return of HMS Vengeance to the operational cycle.

:08:11. > :08:18.Is the Secretary of State telling us that nothing went wrong on this

:08:19. > :08:22.particular launch? While accepting that the nuclear deterrent needs to

:08:23. > :08:27.be shrouded in secrecy, it also needs to deter. Once stories get out

:08:28. > :08:34.there that a missile may have failed, isn't it better to be quite

:08:35. > :08:40.Frank about it, especially if it has no strategic significance, as in

:08:41. > :08:45.this case, it probably has none. Sir Craig Oliver vehementing denies that

:08:46. > :08:50.he or any other members of David Cameron's media team ever knew about

:08:51. > :08:55.the aborted Trident test. Will the Secretary of State tell us when Mr

:08:56. > :09:01.Cameron was told about it, when he himself was told about it, and will

:09:02. > :09:06.he accept an invitation to attend the defence committee tomorrow

:09:07. > :09:10.morning to resolve any outstanding issueser in closed session for --

:09:11. > :09:17.issues in closed session for some questions if need be? As I've said,

:09:18. > :09:22.the details of the demonstration and shake down operation I am not going

:09:23. > :09:31.to discuss publicly on the floor of this House. All I can do is repeat

:09:32. > :09:37.that HMS Vengeance has successfully been certified again to rejoin the

:09:38. > :09:42.operational cycle. So far as the Prime Minister is concerned, I think

:09:43. > :09:46.I've already answered the responsibility of the Prime Minister

:09:47. > :09:51.and made it very clear that the previous Prime Minister and this

:09:52. > :09:56.Prime Minister are, of course, were, of course, informed about the

:09:57. > :10:00.maintenance of the nuclear deterrent and the outcome of the test and the

:10:01. > :10:12.successful return of HMS Vengeance to the operational cycle. The basic

:10:13. > :10:15.rule of deterrent is it has to be credible and capable. Given

:10:16. > :10:20.yesterday's sensational revelations, it's safe to assume that Trident is

:10:21. > :10:26.neither. Given that one of the UK's nuclear missiles Veered off towards

:10:27. > :10:31.the United States, it really is an insuggest to our intelligence to try

:10:32. > :10:35.and claim, as the Government has, that it's Trident's capability and

:10:36. > :10:40.effectiveness is unquestionable. There is however an equally serious

:10:41. > :10:45.matter to arise, this the deliberate withholding of information from this

:10:46. > :10:49.House ahead of crucial Commons vote on the renewal last July. It is

:10:50. > :10:55.absolutely outrageous that this House had to rely on the leak to a

:10:56. > :10:58.Sunday newspaper to find out about this and the subsequent cover up.

:10:59. > :11:03.Account Secretary of State tell me when did he first find out about

:11:04. > :11:08.this missile failure? Was it he who informered the new Prime Minister

:11:09. > :11:09.about the failure? And who took the decision not to inform Parliament of

:11:10. > :11:21.this incident? The honourable gentleman is opposed

:11:22. > :11:27.to the Trident deterrent that has kept this country safe for so many

:11:28. > :11:33.years. Let me first of all caution him against believing everything he

:11:34. > :11:40.has red in the weekend press. Let me repeat to him that this government

:11:41. > :11:45.is in no doubt about the capability and effectiveness of our deterrent

:11:46. > :11:50.and would not have asked This House to endorse the principle of the

:11:51. > :11:54.deterrent and our plans to build four new submarines if there had

:11:55. > :12:00.been any question about the capability and effectiveness of our

:12:01. > :12:08.deterrent. Would my right honourable friend agree that secrecy and

:12:09. > :12:14.transparency are simply incompatible and it is right that every British

:12:15. > :12:17.and indeed American and French government, our other nuclear

:12:18. > :12:24.allies, have always put secrecy first in this area? I agree with my

:12:25. > :12:28.honourable friend. As I said to the House earlier, there are very few

:12:29. > :12:33.issues that cannot be discussed openly in This House, but the

:12:34. > :12:43.security of the nuclear deterrent is clearly a prime example of something

:12:44. > :12:47.that cannot be discussed in detail. Can the Secretary of State confirm

:12:48. > :12:50.that whether through the notice to Gehrman system or other warning

:12:51. > :12:54.systems are enemies would have been aware of the failure of this test

:12:55. > :12:59.and would he agree with me that four members of This House to be able to

:13:00. > :13:03.debate the merits of Trident or its like-for-like replacement

:13:04. > :13:08.effectively we need timely and security appropriate information and

:13:09. > :13:14.that we did not get it in this case? On the first point, the honourable

:13:15. > :13:16.gentleman may be aware that under our international treaty

:13:17. > :13:22.obligations, and as funny test-firing does have to be given to

:13:23. > :13:29.other countries and other interested parties and in the case of the June

:13:30. > :13:33.test-firing, that was done. I do not agree with this latter point. The

:13:34. > :13:39.government would not have put the motion in front of This House last

:13:40. > :13:46.July had it had any doubt about the continuing capability and

:13:47. > :13:50.effectiveness of the deterrent. Can I remind the House that the Russians

:13:51. > :13:56.do not just contemplate using nuclear weapons, but they practice

:13:57. > :14:04.their employment and their exercises? Is it not crucial,

:14:05. > :14:08.therefore, that we retain our own independent nuclear deterrent to

:14:09. > :14:15.ensure that our potential enemies, such as Russia, our deterrent and

:14:16. > :14:22.think twice before they even contemplate using such a weapon of

:14:23. > :14:26.mass destruction? I am grateful to my honourable friend and that indeed

:14:27. > :14:32.was the proposition that before this new parliament last July and

:14:33. > :14:39.endorsed by 472 members of This House against a vote of only 117.

:14:40. > :14:45.117 including, of course, the Leader of the Opposition. As the government

:14:46. > :14:52.instigated a bleak enquiry to find out who the source for the Sunday

:14:53. > :14:58.Times was and will it do so? As I said earlier, I am not confirming

:14:59. > :15:01.speculation in the weekend press and I would caution the House against

:15:02. > :15:10.believing everything they have read in the weekend press. Could I ask

:15:11. > :15:15.the Secretary of State whether the MoD and US partners have shared

:15:16. > :15:19.information about the test-firing and subsequent evaluation? This will

:15:20. > :15:24.be important to reassure our service personnel and the public in the

:15:25. > :15:27.validity of the nuclear deterrent. I understand why my honourable friend

:15:28. > :15:32.has asked the question, but I am afraid I have to say that it takes

:15:33. > :15:38.us into the detail of the operation of the nuclear deterrent and I am

:15:39. > :15:42.not going there. Following on from that, the government continually

:15:43. > :15:46.refers to Trident as the independent nuclear deterrent it the science in

:15:47. > :15:49.the malfunction was designed, manufactured and owned by the US

:15:50. > :15:54.with a US guidance system and leasing arrangements. It isn't an

:15:55. > :15:59.operational issue to tell us whether he has known that the malfunction

:16:00. > :16:02.last year was reported at the time today's president, or whether the

:16:03. > :16:08.new president has been briefed about it and nor who decided to cover it

:16:09. > :16:14.up, the UK Government or the US. Our Trident nuclear deterrent is

:16:15. > :16:22.completely operationally independent of the United States and, in our

:16:23. > :16:27.country, only the Prime Minister can authorise the firing of these

:16:28. > :16:34.weapons, even if they are employed as part of an overall visual

:16:35. > :16:37.response. Can I congratulate my right honourable friend in the

:16:38. > :16:44.approach he has taken on this issue? I think that the whole area of our

:16:45. > :16:49.independent nuclear deterrent is of crucial importance and I think the

:16:50. > :16:53.arguments he has made very strongly about not being as open as he might

:16:54. > :17:00.at times like to be on the operational side is absolutely

:17:01. > :17:05.correct. I am grateful to my honourable friend. It might well be

:17:06. > :17:09.that earlier governments in different situations, indeed in more

:17:10. > :17:14.benevolent times, might have taken different decisions about how much

:17:15. > :17:18.information they were prepared to reveal about these particular

:17:19. > :17:22.demonstration and shakedown operations. These are not, of

:17:23. > :17:27.course, benevolent times and the decision would have taken was not to

:17:28. > :17:33.release any information about the testing of all the systems and

:17:34. > :17:42.subsystems involved in the operational cycle of HMS venture. I

:17:43. > :17:47.think there is no doubt as to why The Member For North East Somerset

:17:48. > :17:50.wanted to have this in private, not just to keep our Zoo Bridge from the

:17:51. > :17:55.Russians, but to save the ministers and the Prime Minister the

:17:56. > :18:01.embarrassment. It is worse than a crime. I have known him long enough

:18:02. > :18:06.to know he is naturally pugnacious and combative in spirit but that

:18:07. > :18:12.mustn't elide into impugning the integrity of another honourable

:18:13. > :18:17.member. He has had his bit of fun, but he must now wash his mouth out,

:18:18. > :18:23.withdraw those words and put a question, for which the nation will

:18:24. > :18:26.be grateful. I certainly withdraw an implication that the honourable

:18:27. > :18:33.member was worried about embarrassment to the Minister. Could

:18:34. > :18:39.the Minister confirm whether it is the case that in the book the silent

:18:40. > :18:45.deep there is a full description of a previous firing in 2012. How is it

:18:46. > :18:49.an operational matter or a security threat merely to ask when the

:18:50. > :18:56.Minister and when the Prime Minister were made aware of the problem and

:18:57. > :18:59.why they decided to keep it quiet? On the first point, I have made it

:19:00. > :19:05.clear that, of course, earlier governments in different

:19:06. > :19:09.circumstances have taken different decisions not to share details with

:19:10. > :19:15.Parliament, but to release information publicly about the

:19:16. > :19:20.completion of these particular tests. We have to take our decision

:19:21. > :19:26.in the light of the circumstances that prevailed at the time and the

:19:27. > :19:30.National security considerations. So far as his second question is

:19:31. > :19:34.concerned, I have made it clear that both I and the Prime Minister are

:19:35. > :19:39.informed of nuclear matters at all times and, in particular, of the

:19:40. > :19:46.successful return of HMS vengeance to the operational cycle. I welcome

:19:47. > :19:50.the approach so far from the Secretary of State. These things

:19:51. > :19:56.should always be super. Will he speculate with me why it should be

:19:57. > :19:58.that when the debate last was on renewal, neither to do with Trident

:19:59. > :20:06.missiles, while the should be any suggestion the Prime Minister would

:20:07. > :20:10.announce this failure? Well, I think I have already said Mr Speaker. The

:20:11. > :20:15.government would not have brought the motion before the House last

:20:16. > :20:18.year had there been any doubt about the safety, the capability or the

:20:19. > :20:25.effectiveness of the Trident missile system. He is right to remind us

:20:26. > :20:31.that that vote and the huge majority that it secured, that vote was, of

:20:32. > :20:36.course, on the principle of our deterrent and the government plan to

:20:37. > :20:43.renew our four submarines. Mr Speaker, the essence of deterrence

:20:44. > :20:49.is uncertainty about when or whether or if missiles will be fired. Can I

:20:50. > :20:54.take it that the purpose of the statement today by the Secretary of

:20:55. > :21:02.State is that he wishes to add to uncertainty and, therefore, increase

:21:03. > :21:06.deterrence? Well, to take his question seriously, he is right that

:21:07. > :21:14.the principle of deterrence, of course, is to leave your allies

:21:15. > :21:17.uncertain as to the circumstances in which you would employed. I have

:21:18. > :21:26.simply made clear to the House today that the outcome of the test was a

:21:27. > :21:29.successful return by HMS vengeance to the operational cycle. I am not

:21:30. > :21:36.prepared to go into further operational details of the tests

:21:37. > :21:41.themselves. I welcome the approach by the government to this and I also

:21:42. > :21:47.thank my right honourable friend for his reassurance of the effectiveness

:21:48. > :21:52.of the Trident system. I wonder if he could confirm that there have

:21:53. > :21:56.been 160 successful firings of this missile and that surely it reassure

:21:57. > :22:00.the British people rather more than the prospect of the Leader of the

:22:01. > :22:07.Opposition haven't his finger on the button. He is right to draw

:22:08. > :22:14.attention of the House to the previous testing regime and the

:22:15. > :22:18.House might want to know that the demonstration and shakedown

:22:19. > :22:24.operation is critical at intervals for demonstrating the effectiveness

:22:25. > :22:28.of the deterrent. It comprises a comprehensive series of system and

:22:29. > :22:35.subsystem tests, as I have said, and it provides a period of intensive

:22:36. > :22:39.training for the submarine crew. It evaluates the complex weapon system

:22:40. > :22:44.involved in Trident, including the performance of the crew and it

:22:45. > :22:48.concludes, each time, with an unarmed missile firing. He HMS

:22:49. > :22:58.vengeance successfully concluded that shakedown operation. As a

:22:59. > :23:01.supporter of the deterrent, doesn't the Secretary of State understand

:23:02. > :23:06.that a leak to a Sunday newspaper followed frankly by government

:23:07. > :23:12.stonewalling does not enhance support for the deterrent, it

:23:13. > :23:16.undermines it? I can understand why the honourable gentleman, he is a

:23:17. > :23:23.supporter of deterrent, why he has said that, but the security of our

:23:24. > :23:31.deterrent is absolutely paramount at a time like this and whether he

:23:32. > :23:34.likes it or not, I am not going to respond to speculation about the

:23:35. > :23:42.test that occurred last June and I am not going to give details of the

:23:43. > :23:48.particular operation of HMS vengeance during the test. Does my

:23:49. > :23:53.right honourable friend agree with me that the continuing secrecy of

:23:54. > :23:57.our nuclear deterrent has kept this free from aggression day in day out

:23:58. > :24:07.since 1968 and that we owe a huge debt of gratitude to the men and

:24:08. > :24:10.women that operated? I wholeheartedly endorse that. I hope

:24:11. > :24:14.that would at least be common ground. The nuclear deterrent has

:24:15. > :24:23.played its part in keeping this country safe through a series of

:24:24. > :24:26.continuous at sea patrols, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. I

:24:27. > :24:35.joined my honourable friend in paying tribute to the crews of all

:24:36. > :24:39.four of our nuclear submarines. There is now a question about the

:24:40. > :24:45.effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent. This in itself, is in

:24:46. > :24:48.terms of what is in The Papers, this undermines our national security. We

:24:49. > :24:53.need to send a clear message that our deterrent is still able to do

:24:54. > :24:56.its job. I urge the Secretary of State to accept the invitation of

:24:57. > :25:01.the chair of the Select Committee, reassure us and the House that our

:25:02. > :25:05.deterrent is fit for purpose. Let me just reassure the honourable lady

:25:06. > :25:09.who does follow these matters extremely closely and on the defence

:25:10. > :25:13.committee, that there is absolutely no doubt about the effectiveness of

:25:14. > :25:18.our deterrent and, again, had the government had any doubts about the

:25:19. > :25:20.continuing capability or effectiveness of the deterrent it

:25:21. > :25:27.would not have brought the motion before the House last July. Would my

:25:28. > :25:32.right honourable friend agree with me that not only was the Prime

:25:33. > :25:36.Minister absolutely right not to discuss this on national television,

:25:37. > :25:42.but that a 90% success rate in testing for a weapon system is

:25:43. > :25:46.phenomenal and that once it has been tested, all but that go out are

:25:47. > :25:49.fully operational and 100% capable and this is something we should a

:25:50. > :25:58.huge tribute to Her Majesty's Royal My honourable friend is right to

:25:59. > :26:03.draw attention to the importance of these tests and to also hint at the

:26:04. > :26:09.complexity of the tests themselves, of the systems and the subsystems

:26:10. > :26:14.that are involved in maintaining the Trident deterrent. I think it is to

:26:15. > :26:18.the dread it of the crew of HMS Vengeance, they were able to

:26:19. > :26:24.complete these tests last July and now take their part again in the

:26:25. > :26:29.operational cycle. Since the minister's not prepared to confirm

:26:30. > :26:36.very much at all, can I ask him whether he would confirm that each

:26:37. > :26:47.test of a Trident missile costs at least ?17 million. No, I'm not able

:26:48. > :26:51.to confirm that either. Thank you Mr Speaker, it is regrettable that the

:26:52. > :26:56.phrase cover up has been used concerning this, when this concerns

:26:57. > :27:00.our national security. Would my right honourable friend agree with

:27:01. > :27:04.me, if things go wrong, the last things you do is give succour to the

:27:05. > :27:09.enemy by telling them that is the case? I agree with my honourable

:27:10. > :27:15.friend. It is important that we maintain the secrecy of our

:27:16. > :27:19.deterrent and it is important for us the, for our adversaries to

:27:20. > :27:23.understand that we attach the paramount importance to making sure

:27:24. > :27:31.the operational details of the deterrent are as closely guarded as

:27:32. > :27:35.possible. I look forward it meeting with the Secretary of State tomorrow

:27:36. > :27:38.at the defence committee if he's available, would he not agree with

:27:39. > :27:42.me that credibility lies at the heart of this urgent question today.

:27:43. > :27:45.Will there be an official inquiry into the malfunction and overall

:27:46. > :27:51.credibility of how the UK would deliver its weapons of mass

:27:52. > :27:55.destruction and will there be a further inquiry by the PM could not

:27:56. > :27:58.answer a question on four separate occasions on the Andrew Marr Show

:27:59. > :28:04.yesterday. Our nation really does deserve better as does our serving

:28:05. > :28:10.personnel On the first point, I am uponering the invitation that --

:28:11. > :28:13.pondering the invitation that I've received to answer questions again

:28:14. > :28:15.tomorrow as fully as I've been answering them today. I will give

:28:16. > :28:20.that... LAUGHTER

:28:21. > :28:24.I will give that further thought. The Prime Minister, of course, did

:28:25. > :28:26.answer questions yesterday. She didn't give the answer that the

:28:27. > :28:31.honourable gentleman may have wanted. But she did answer that

:28:32. > :28:36.question. I want again to be clear with the House, the Prime Minister

:28:37. > :28:41.who retains the ultimate responsibility and an awesome one at

:28:42. > :28:46.that for our deterrent, is kept informed as to how that deterrent is

:28:47. > :28:53.maintained and was informed, of course, as her predecessor was of

:28:54. > :28:58.the return of HMS Vengeance, the successful return of HMS Vengeance

:28:59. > :29:01.to the operational cycle. As these missiles get older there are bound

:29:02. > :29:05.to be increasing maintenance programme costs as well as costs

:29:06. > :29:09.from I merging and as yet unforeseen threats to the system. What is the

:29:10. > :29:13.United Kingdom's exposure to these costs of maintaining and protecting

:29:14. > :29:21.the Trident missile system this side of 2060? My honourable friend draws

:29:22. > :29:28.attention to the relative age of the Trident system, which I know he's

:29:29. > :29:33.had some doubts about in the past and probably continues today. But

:29:34. > :29:39.that is one of the reasons why these tests are conducted every four or

:29:40. > :29:44.five years, to make sure that our submarines are able to fire the

:29:45. > :29:48.Trident missile when they return from periods of long maintenance. On

:29:49. > :29:54.the very specific question, perhaps my honourable friend would allow me

:29:55. > :30:01.to write to him. As an accident is the most likely cause of the nuclear

:30:02. > :30:05.catastrophe that we all fear, either by misunderstandings between the

:30:06. > :30:11.nations or because of human error or because of technical failure. Now

:30:12. > :30:17.President Trump has his impulsive finger on the nuclear button,

:30:18. > :30:23.shouldn't our prime course now be to persuade him not to encourage South

:30:24. > :30:29.Korea, Japan and other small nations to acquire nuclear weapons, thus

:30:30. > :30:32.magnifying the risk of all by accident.

:30:33. > :30:37.THE SPEAKER: Especially in relation to Trident testing. I'll do my best

:30:38. > :30:42.but that might be quite hard. I hope you'll join me with Mr Speaker in

:30:43. > :30:44.congratulating President Trump on his inauguration and say how much

:30:45. > :30:50.our Prime Minister looks forward to meeting him later this week. And

:30:51. > :30:57.discussing the importance of our Nato alliance to both our countries

:30:58. > :31:01.and the importance of the nuclear deterrent within that Nato alliance.

:31:02. > :31:09.THE SPEAKER: What the Secretary of State has merit but I was more

:31:10. > :31:15.inclined to congratulate the young gentleman on the ink newt of his

:31:16. > :31:22.question. Ingenuity? This deterrent has brought us not only peace since

:31:23. > :31:34.1968 and rot tection of western Europe but is congrunt as our

:31:35. > :31:41.position as a permanent five member of Nato. Isn't this all in line with

:31:42. > :31:48.unicks complaining about the cost of Viagra. A gree.

:31:49. > :31:56.THE SPEAKER: I am sure it went down very well at the Oxford union.

:31:57. > :32:00.Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister was asked nothing that

:32:01. > :32:04.compromised security, she was asked what she knew and her refusal to

:32:05. > :32:07.answer that four times is an embarrassment not just to the

:32:08. > :32:10.Government but to the United Kingdom. Does the Secretary of State

:32:11. > :32:15.not understand at a time when the Government is piking cuts in

:32:16. > :32:19.virtually all areas that to not deal with this misfiring will not make

:32:20. > :32:24.people believe that the huge price tag of Trident is worth it and that

:32:25. > :32:34.needs to be addressed. We've had this debate last July in this -- and

:32:35. > :32:37.this House decided by an overwhelming majority committed to

:32:38. > :32:42.the plan to build the four new submarines. I've made the Prime

:32:43. > :32:47.Minister's position extremely clear. She has the responsibility for the

:32:48. > :32:52.deterrent. She is coped informed as to how that -- kept informed as to

:32:53. > :32:55.how that nuclear deterrent is maintained including the successful

:32:56. > :33:02.return of HMS Vengeance to the operational cycle. Like myy of my

:33:03. > :33:06.constituents -- many of my constituents, I live in the shadow

:33:07. > :33:10.of a nuclear facility. I want to be certain that those weapons at every

:33:11. > :33:16.stage of their development are tested to the utmost, even to the

:33:17. > :33:20.point of failure. Will my right honourable friend confirm those

:33:21. > :33:24.tests should be secret. For them not to be secret gives aid to those who

:33:25. > :33:29.mean us harm. I agree with my honourable friend that the vital

:33:30. > :33:35.importance of keeping this work secret and let me also pay tribute

:33:36. > :33:40.to the secret work that is done by his constituents working at

:33:41. > :33:45.Aldermarston and you are field alongside as part of the -- burfield

:33:46. > :33:54.alongside as part of the importance of verifying the detent. Having been

:33:55. > :33:58.in Florida for the 2009 firing I know this is not the first time

:33:59. > :34:01.there's been a media blackout to suit a particular Government's

:34:02. > :34:11.agenda. That firing was of course carried out by my own husband. The

:34:12. > :34:16.MoD press statement says that the crew were successfully tested. What

:34:17. > :34:19.about the missile? How can the nuclear deterrent be certified when

:34:20. > :34:25.the system has catastrophicically failed? As I said the honourable

:34:26. > :34:30.lady and I know she has family connections in this area, must not

:34:31. > :34:37.believe everything she read in the newspapers yesterday. I am not going

:34:38. > :34:42.into particular operational details, except to confirm that HMS Vengeance

:34:43. > :34:53.successfully concluded her demonstration and shake down

:34:54. > :34:56.operation. Mr Speaker, there say huge difference between -- there is

:34:57. > :35:00.a huge difference between subjects which are of interest to the public

:35:01. > :35:06.and things in the public interest. Would my right honourable friend

:35:07. > :35:10.agree with me, whilst intelligence operations, counter-terrorism

:35:11. > :35:14.operations and nuclear submarine operations are of massive interest

:35:15. > :35:17.to the public, it is not in the public interest or national interest

:35:18. > :35:21.to discuss them openly, either in in place or any other place. I

:35:22. > :35:28.completely agree with my honourable friend. The Secretary of State has

:35:29. > :35:31.advised us not to believe everything we read in the Sunday newspapers,

:35:32. > :35:35.but should we believe the White House official who while we've been

:35:36. > :35:40.sitting here debating has confirmed to CNN that the missile did

:35:41. > :35:45.autoself-destruct off the coast of Florida and if that is the case, why

:35:46. > :35:52.is the British Parliament and the British public the last people to

:35:53. > :35:57.know? It's as I've said, we do not in this House, nor has any previous

:35:58. > :36:03.Government given operational details of the demonstration and shake down

:36:04. > :36:12.operation of one of our submarines conducting a test with one of our

:36:13. > :36:16.Trident missiles. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that a most

:36:17. > :36:21.important conclusion from this particular missile test is that our

:36:22. > :36:25.excellent submariners or HMS Vengeance prove they can deal with

:36:26. > :36:28.unexpected challenges with a ballistic missile system known to be

:36:29. > :36:34.the most reliable in the world. That should be of enormous reassurance to

:36:35. > :36:37.the British people. I congrape late the crew on completing their test

:36:38. > :36:41.and -- congratulate the crew on completing their test and returning

:36:42. > :36:45.to the operational cycle of the submarines that discharge this duty

:36:46. > :36:53.on our behalf. But again, I'm not going into operational details. How

:36:54. > :36:59.can this be an independent nuclear deterrent if on the one hand, Donald

:37:00. > :37:05.Trump, the President of the United States of America, a man that is

:37:06. > :37:11.thick as two short planks is given the information and the whole of the

:37:12. > :37:19.Opposition benches are not allowed it? How can it be independent? The

:37:20. > :37:23.honourable gentleman knows very well the nuclear deterrent that has

:37:24. > :37:26.served us so well is independent because its operational control

:37:27. > :37:33.rests with our Prime Minister not with the President of the United

:37:34. > :37:37.States. Can my right honourable friend confirm that the full debate

:37:38. > :37:42.we had in this place six months ago, on July 18, and which was endorsed

:37:43. > :37:46.by 472 right honourable friends and members was on the principle of our

:37:47. > :37:53.deterrents and replacing the vanguard class boats, it was not on

:37:54. > :37:58.a routine test. I can confirm that. It was an overwhelming majority. It

:37:59. > :38:03.has allowed us now to proceed to start with the construction of the

:38:04. > :38:09.submarines and I had the honour to cut steel on the first of those four

:38:10. > :38:14.submarines in October of last year. But I do repeat to the House, had

:38:15. > :38:20.the Government any doubt at this time of the safety, capability or

:38:21. > :38:26.effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent, it would not have brought

:38:27. > :38:30.the motion before the House. Can the Secretary of State tell us what

:38:31. > :38:33.further Trident missile tests are planned and will he keep the House

:38:34. > :38:41.updated on the outcome of future tests? These particular

:38:42. > :38:46.demonstration and shake down operations take place when each of

:38:47. > :38:52.our submarines emerges from a period of long-term maintenance. So they

:38:53. > :38:57.tend to take place every four or five years. It would follow from

:38:58. > :39:06.that there is not likely to be another one in the immediate future.

:39:07. > :39:10.As, on this occasion, we will of course keep the, keep interested

:39:11. > :39:15.parties informed as we wrote to the chairman of the defence committee,

:39:16. > :39:20.the Shadow defence spokesman and the chairman of the Public Accounts

:39:21. > :39:25.Committee. In certain theatres of war such as

:39:26. > :39:30.Ukraine, Russia has been testing and refining its electronic and cyber

:39:31. > :39:38.warfare techniques. I'm not blaming Russia for this interdent, but will

:39:39. > :39:42.this be taken against possible countermeasures? Yes, I was in

:39:43. > :39:46.Ukraine last week, discussing this amongst other matters. Of course, we

:39:47. > :39:53.are taking very good care to ensure that our deterrent is properly

:39:54. > :39:57.protected against any new technologies that our adversaries

:39:58. > :40:00.might get hold of. Does the minister not realise because the Trident

:40:01. > :40:05.programme was approved by the House as a whole, it doesn't mean there

:40:06. > :40:10.after there should be total silence, either from members of Parliament or

:40:11. > :40:14.the media. As far as the failed test is concerned, this is not ironical,

:40:15. > :40:19.but if the information had been given at the time and there had been

:40:20. > :40:28.no cover up, there would be far less publicity for what is taking place

:40:29. > :40:34.now. I don't accept that. Previous governments that he supported in

:40:35. > :40:39.this House have not given details, operational details of previous

:40:40. > :40:43.demonstration and shake down operations that comprise the major

:40:44. > :40:49.tests of the systems and subsystems that we've been dealing with today.

:40:50. > :40:57.Can I commend the reticence of my right honourable friend to get drawn

:40:58. > :41:00.into this and the reticence of the prime ministers which was entirely

:41:01. > :41:04.appropriate given the subject at issue. Isn't it ironic to hear

:41:05. > :41:07.honourable and right honourable members complaining about the

:41:08. > :41:12.possible lack of credibility of the deterrent and some them don't

:41:13. > :41:15.actually believe in the doctrine of deterrence at all and it would be

:41:16. > :41:20.unwise of the Russians or any other potential adversaries to suggest

:41:21. > :41:23.they can take the risk of invading this or that country on the basis

:41:24. > :41:29.that we might have in misfire of one of our missiles. Again, I agree with

:41:30. > :41:35.my honourable friend and we should not forget that there were many in

:41:36. > :41:40.that particular debate to take the opposite view that we no longer

:41:41. > :41:45.needed the deterrent. I am pleased that the majority, the overwhelming

:41:46. > :41:49.majority, of This House from both sides of This House that voted in

:41:50. > :41:56.favour of renewing the deterrent that has kept us safe for so long.

:41:57. > :42:00.We now know, despite a refusal to answer on the Andrew Marshall, that

:42:01. > :42:04.the Prime Minister did know about this. What specific discussions took

:42:05. > :42:07.place with the Prime Minister about whether to disclose this will

:42:08. > :42:10.function to Parliament, when it did these discussions take place and how

:42:11. > :42:14.was it determined it should not be shared and does realise how

:42:15. > :42:20.inadequate his responses today have been in relation to This House and

:42:21. > :42:25.to be watching public? It might be that she and members of the watching

:42:26. > :42:33.public might want and would like to know further operational details of

:42:34. > :42:38.our nuclear deterrent, but I am not going to assist them. So far as her

:42:39. > :42:42.specific programme is concerned, this promised, as a predecessor, is

:42:43. > :42:48.kept informed as to how the nuclear deterrent is maintained and was

:42:49. > :42:58.fully aware of the successful return of HMS Vengeance to the operational

:42:59. > :43:04.cycle. As my right honourable friend followed the argument given by some

:43:05. > :43:07.opposite that perhaps we would have voted differently had this

:43:08. > :43:13.information being given back in July? Can I tell my right honourable

:43:14. > :43:19.friend. That is the case? We would not have been influenced by the

:43:20. > :43:23.result of one out of many tests. Indeed, is there anyone on this side

:43:24. > :43:30.of the House who would have voted differently had this information

:43:31. > :43:37.come out? No. I haven't confirmed any information today and have been

:43:38. > :43:40.careful to try not to confirm any particular information today, except

:43:41. > :43:46.to one of the House repeatedly not to believe everything that was in

:43:47. > :43:51.the newspapers yesterday. He is right to remind us that the vote in

:43:52. > :43:55.July was on the principle of the deterrent and our plans to replace

:43:56. > :44:03.the current boats with the four new dreadnought submarines. When we

:44:04. > :44:08.voted in July last year on funding Trident, unfortunately the official

:44:09. > :44:12.opposition was split. Now, properly informed scrutiny is vital to the

:44:13. > :44:16.effective and accountable operation of his Department. Is he satisfied

:44:17. > :44:25.with the level of scrutiny by the official opposition on this matter?

:44:26. > :44:30.I have been disappointed for some time in the scrutiny of the official

:44:31. > :44:35.opposition but perhaps my fifth defence Shadow will improve on the

:44:36. > :44:40.record of her four predecessors. I am sure she will. There is clearly a

:44:41. > :44:48.balance to be struck. Parliament is rightly keen to know details of the

:44:49. > :44:51.expenditure involved in replacing the four submarines and that was a

:44:52. > :44:58.big part of the debate and we will make sure that the Defence Select

:44:59. > :45:02.Committee and the Public Accounts Committee are kept fully informed as

:45:03. > :45:13.the board replacement programme continues. Will know of my special

:45:14. > :45:22.interest in the Royal Navy. Like many of my constituents. With over

:45:23. > :45:27.160 successful Trident missile tests, isn't it ridiculous for some

:45:28. > :45:35.people to be claiming that this system does not work? Well, let me

:45:36. > :45:40.reassure my honourable friend who does take a close interest in these

:45:41. > :45:44.matters, that the Trident system does work and we are in absolutely

:45:45. > :45:52.no doubt about its capability and its effectiveness. It will come as

:45:53. > :45:55.no surprise to the Secretary of State for those of us who live

:45:56. > :46:00.within the blast zone of fast lane, but we do not share the Secretary of

:46:01. > :46:03.State's confidence. If he has absolute confidence in the

:46:04. > :46:08.capabilities of HMS Vengeance and the system, what steps is his

:46:09. > :46:15.Department taken to rectify the error that caused the aborted launch

:46:16. > :46:18.itself? As I have already said, HMS Vengeance completed its

:46:19. > :46:22.demonstration and shakedown operation successfully, otherwise it

:46:23. > :46:29.would not have been able to rejoin the four broad operational cycle.

:46:30. > :46:36.Good my right honourable friend confirm that while Devonport

:46:37. > :46:41.dockyard in my constituency was responsible for the refitting and

:46:42. > :46:45.refuelling of HMS Vengeance, the Dock Yard is not responsible for the

:46:46. > :46:54.missiles and weaponry as some ill informed people might think? Yes, I

:46:55. > :47:01.can confirm that. Thank you Mr Speaker, so far today we have had a

:47:02. > :47:04.Secretary of State who has told me he doesn't believe in greater

:47:05. > :47:08.transparency and his backbenchers agree with them. The Prime Minister,

:47:09. > :47:12.if this test was successful, why did the promise to not answer that

:47:13. > :47:17.yesterday? I don't understand how he can tell us everything is OK, when

:47:18. > :47:25.this generation of Trident is not good enough. Our constituents demand

:47:26. > :47:28.an enquiry. The honourable gentleman and I disagree. I do not believe in

:47:29. > :47:35.greater transparency in This House when it comes to our nuclear

:47:36. > :47:38.deterrent. With a resurgent Russia and an unstable world, would the

:47:39. > :47:42.Secretary of State agree with me that nothing would have heard in the

:47:43. > :47:47.exchange today undermine the clear rationale for the renewal of our

:47:48. > :47:53.continuous at the nuclear deterrent to secure the long-term security of

:47:54. > :48:00.our country? The security of the deterrent and its effectiveness is

:48:01. > :48:06.underlined by the testing and shakedown programme when these boats

:48:07. > :48:11.come out of their long-term refit and are being tested again to see

:48:12. > :48:18.whether they are fit and ready to rejoin the operational cycle. That

:48:19. > :48:25.is what HMS Vengeance has now done. Doesn't the Secretary of State's

:48:26. > :48:31.character -- don't tell approach make no sense at all, given that

:48:32. > :48:35.with the reports we have had, or American and abroad will certainly

:48:36. > :48:39.be given full details of what happened around this test and that

:48:40. > :48:41.his stonewalling here does nothing to strengthen our security and

:48:42. > :48:48.everything to undermine the credibility of This House? This is

:48:49. > :48:56.our deterrent, carried by our submarines and the secrecy that we

:48:57. > :49:02.rightly put round it is in our national interest. Would my right

:49:03. > :49:06.honourable friend agreed that ever since Clement Attlee sought our

:49:07. > :49:10.first nuclear deterrent without a debate in Parliament, without even a

:49:11. > :49:13.debate within the Labour Party, successive responsible governments

:49:14. > :49:18.have always treated these issues with the utmost discretion and we

:49:19. > :49:20.must not allow the present tortured relationship between the Labour

:49:21. > :49:29.Party and the nuclear deterrent to change that? I do agree with that.

:49:30. > :49:33.Previous governments have been very careful to maintain the secrecy of

:49:34. > :49:41.the deterrent and I think it is important we keep to that. Have

:49:42. > :49:45.there been any other missile test failures of this type the government

:49:46. > :49:51.has chosen not to share with the House of Commons? Or should I watch

:49:52. > :49:55.a White House briefing if I want that information? I am not

:49:56. > :50:00.confirming particular details of the operation and testing of the various

:50:01. > :50:06.systems and subsystems involved must all I Kunduz remind the gentleman

:50:07. > :50:12.that this demonstration and shakedown operation was concluded

:50:13. > :50:18.successfully, along HMS Vengeance to take it apart now in the four boat

:50:19. > :50:22.operational cycle. Mr Speaker, to clear up any confusion, can the

:50:23. > :50:26.Secretary of State share with us, has there been any change in the

:50:27. > :50:28.approach of the government to informing the sounds of this

:50:29. > :50:35.demonstration and shakedown operation? No, there hasn't.

:50:36. > :50:39.Previous governments have not given details, have not given details, of

:50:40. > :50:49.previous demonstration and shakedown operations to Parliament. The

:50:50. > :50:53.replacement of the Trident submarine system does not only enjoyed the

:50:54. > :50:56.support of the majority of members of parliament, it also enjoys the

:50:57. > :51:01.support of the majority of people in every one of the four nations of the

:51:02. > :51:06.United Kingdom. On that basis, does the Secretary of State recognise

:51:07. > :51:10.that the wake this information is coming out, the fact that in the

:51:11. > :51:15.last hour, Moore has been revealed by the US defence Department than in

:51:16. > :51:19.this Parliament massively undermined that confidence that we need the

:51:20. > :51:24.public to have inconsistent? I do not think members of the public

:51:25. > :51:30.agree and I do not agree. They understand that the effectiveness of

:51:31. > :51:36.the deterrent does depend on the secrecy that is needed regarding the

:51:37. > :51:39.detail of that operation. Does might right honourable friend agree with

:51:40. > :51:44.me that the continuing effectiveness of the system depends upon its

:51:45. > :51:48.routine testing question mark this is not a secret. A spokesperson for

:51:49. > :51:52.the opposition was informed in advance. What does damage national

:51:53. > :51:57.security is to give a running commentary on the success or

:51:58. > :52:03.otherwise of those tests. I agree with Mike honourable friend. Members

:52:04. > :52:08.of This House, senior members of This House, were informed of the

:52:09. > :52:12.forthcoming demonstration and shakedown operation which, as I have

:52:13. > :52:18.described, involves a series of very complex tests of all the different

:52:19. > :52:24.systems and subsystems involved. But operation was concluded

:52:25. > :52:27.successfully. What the Secretary of State has been saying today is that

:52:28. > :52:33.members of the public in this country have no right to know about

:52:34. > :52:38.a nuclear missile miss firing, but the people of America and the people

:52:39. > :52:45.elected as politicians in America do. How does he believe that that

:52:46. > :52:49.incontinence is any in this system? This is our deterrent, carrying our

:52:50. > :52:58.missile and it is for us to decide its level of security. That is why I

:52:59. > :53:02.am not going in to particular operational details and, again, I

:53:03. > :53:04.caution the honourable gentleman against believing everything he has

:53:05. > :53:15.been reading in the weekend newspapers. If there is an

:53:16. > :53:19.investigation into the successful certification of HMS Vengeance last

:53:20. > :53:23.year, can I have assurances from my right honourable friend, the Defence

:53:24. > :53:29.Secretary, but that information will remain classified for the sake of

:53:30. > :53:32.British national security? It will not suddenly remain classified, it

:53:33. > :53:41.will remain top secret. I information regarding our nuclear

:53:42. > :53:46.deterrent properly should. The Prime Minister is responsible for our

:53:47. > :53:50.deterrent and yet again she is not here to account to this Parliament

:53:51. > :53:54.or to reassure the public or our allies. The Secretary of State has

:53:55. > :53:57.been asked a times about who knew what and when, what it was the

:53:58. > :54:01.promised are told, what it was the former promise to told and what it

:54:02. > :54:06.was a good question I am not asking for operational details, I am asking

:54:07. > :54:10.for dates. The question was addressed at the honourable

:54:11. > :54:15.gentleman to me, which is why I am here answering. So far of the Prime

:54:16. > :54:21.Minister is concerned, I made it clear that both prime ministers who

:54:22. > :54:24.had separately ultimate responsibility for the nuclear

:54:25. > :54:27.deterrent -- deterrent, both are kept fully informed as to how that

:54:28. > :54:33.deterrent is maintained and both were made aware of the successful

:54:34. > :54:42.return of HMS Vengeance to the operational cycle. Does my right

:54:43. > :54:46.honourable friend agree with Steve Aiken, a former experienced

:54:47. > :54:50.submarine commander, she told the BBC this morning that this makes no

:54:51. > :54:55.difference to the case for renewal and the government is correct in not

:54:56. > :55:00.commenting on matters which could prejudice our national defence and

:55:01. > :55:08.certainly not on live television? I completely agree with that. Given

:55:09. > :55:13.that the Russians had to be informed in advance of this test and given he

:55:14. > :55:16.clearly would have the capability to monitor the test is he seriously

:55:17. > :55:19.trying to tell us that our enemies and allies can know what happened,

:55:20. > :55:26.but this democratically elected chamber must be kept in the dark?

:55:27. > :55:29.The notice under our international treaty obligations, notice of a

:55:30. > :55:38.future test firing is given to other nuclear powers, including, in this

:55:39. > :55:44.instance, to France and, as he says, to Russia. Operational details are

:55:45. > :55:47.obviously not disclosed. Without reference to any particular test and

:55:48. > :55:52.the necessary security that must surround each, can he confirm that

:55:53. > :55:56.the very point of this testing process is to both certified the

:55:57. > :56:00.crews of Her Majesty's submarines but also to allow Lockheed Martin to

:56:01. > :56:04.maximise the reliability and lethality of this weapon system?

:56:05. > :56:13.Yes in essence that's right. The system is tested to ensure the

:56:14. > :56:17.complex parts and various systems involved are fully understood and

:56:18. > :56:23.that the crew of the submarine concerned are ready to be able to

:56:24. > :56:29.operate it. That operation was, as I've said, several times now,

:56:30. > :56:33.successfully concluded. Mayion of us on these benches share the Defence

:56:34. > :56:36.Secretary's commitment to the deterrent and for that matter his

:56:37. > :56:39.concern about national security, but the logic of what the Secretary of

:56:40. > :56:44.State has said to us today is that there has been a security breach,

:56:45. > :56:50.it's been this weekend. American officials are now briefing CNN and

:56:51. > :56:54.British officials secretly are briefing the Guard yand and the

:56:55. > :57:00.Sunday Times, surely according to his own logic there must be now be a

:57:01. > :57:05.full investigation in Certainly we deplore the leakage of any

:57:06. > :57:10.information about the nuclear deterrent. But it is not for me to

:57:11. > :57:15.comment on what may or may not be happening or said by the United

:57:16. > :57:21.States administration. This is our submarine, our deterrent. It is our

:57:22. > :57:29.responsibility to apply to it the very highest security

:57:30. > :57:32.classification. Would my right honourable friend confirm that no

:57:33. > :57:36.government has ever routinely reported an operational matters

:57:37. > :57:40.relating to our nuclear deterrent at any time because to do so would not

:57:41. > :57:52.only be irresponsible it would also be dangerous? That is absolutely

:57:53. > :57:57.correct. Mr Speaker, he says media publicity is decided on a case by

:57:58. > :58:01.case basis, so was the decision not to publicise this test taken before

:58:02. > :58:05.or after the test? Was any footage taken of the test and were any

:58:06. > :58:10.journalists present in case the decision was made to publicise it?

:58:11. > :58:14.The decision on what publicity to give particular tests, tests that

:58:15. > :58:17.take place every four or five years, is decided by the Government of the

:58:18. > :58:22.day in the light of the circumstances of each test and in

:58:23. > :58:27.the light of the national security considerations that apply at that

:58:28. > :58:36.particular time. They, of course, influence the decision that was

:58:37. > :58:40.taken last June. Since we have to notify other nuclear powers every

:58:41. > :58:43.time a missile test takes place, the number is not unknown to them. So

:58:44. > :58:48.can the Secretary of State confirm to the House that there have been

:58:49. > :58:52.160 tests of the Trident missile system and if he can, won't that

:58:53. > :58:58.give our constituents full confidence that the system provides

:58:59. > :59:01.us the deterrent that we need? I think my honourable friend is

:59:02. > :59:07.broadly correct about the number, but if I'm wrong about that I hope

:59:08. > :59:13.he will allow me to write to him and give him the correct figure. The

:59:14. > :59:17.Government has every confidence in the Trident deterrent system. Again,

:59:18. > :59:22.we would not have brought the motion before the House if we'd any doubt

:59:23. > :59:26.about it. Despite the Secretary of State's refusal to clarify, it is

:59:27. > :59:30.commonly understood that the missile went the wrong way. Now I'm no

:59:31. > :59:34.expert, but that strikes me as a major flaw. And friendly fire with a

:59:35. > :59:37.nuclear weapon is not exactly what the Secretary of State might be

:59:38. > :59:40.looking for. Can the Secretary of State at least tell us whether the

:59:41. > :59:46.new Trident missiles will have better guidance systems? I'm not

:59:47. > :59:53.able to confirm the speculation in which the honourable lady is

:59:54. > :00:01.indulging about the root of the missile that was fired. Would the

:00:02. > :00:04.Secretary of State agree with me that much as there is no doubt of

:00:05. > :00:08.the valour of the men and women of the Royal Navy who keep us safe,

:00:09. > :00:11.that Coke wally we must use discretion when talking about

:00:12. > :00:19.weapons systems they use to keep us safe? Absolutely. I think we owe it

:00:20. > :00:26.to those crews on whom an obligation of secrecy is placed, indeed for

:00:27. > :00:30.their livetime, we owe it to them not to break the security

:00:31. > :00:35.classification of the information surrounding the deterrent or to

:00:36. > :00:41.treat that information in any frivolous way. The Secretary of

:00:42. > :00:48.State has been quizzed by members for over an hour now. I've not heard

:00:49. > :00:52.any member ask for any operational details that might compromise

:00:53. > :00:57.national security. We simply want to know - was this test successful or

:00:58. > :01:02.not? And his refusal to answer that question when his counterpart across

:01:03. > :01:06.the Atlantic is answering it, surely is giving credence to the concerns

:01:07. > :01:10.that it was not successful and as well as not being a deterrent the

:01:11. > :01:14.system simply may not work. I think when the honourable gentleman reads

:01:15. > :01:20.the account of today's proceedings he will see that I have been asked

:01:21. > :01:24.for all kinds of different operational details, but let me

:01:25. > :01:32.repeat to him that the demonstration and shake down operation of which

:01:33. > :01:39.this was one of a number of tests was concluded sat factorily. Many

:01:40. > :01:43.residents of my constituency, some of whom live within 13 miles of

:01:44. > :01:45.Faslane, are extremely angry because of this Government's lack of

:01:46. > :01:48.transparency on this crucial matter. Can the Secretary of State ensure

:01:49. > :01:53.the House that any significant problem relating to future test

:01:54. > :01:57.firing will be reported to the House at his earliest convenience or do

:01:58. > :02:03.with ehave to wait for the Sunday Times to confirm it? I those who

:02:04. > :02:07.work on our behalf at Faslane are very much aware of the importance of

:02:08. > :02:12.the secrecy with which they naturally have to concur. They

:02:13. > :02:17.understand that obligation. Even though he doesn't, I think they too

:02:18. > :02:20.support the importance of the deterrent.

:02:21. > :02:25.THE SPEAKER: Order. Well, I shall take this point of order from the

:02:26. > :02:29.originator of the urgent question if it relates exclusively to the

:02:30. > :02:33.matters under discussion. Not in the attempt to continue the schaengs but

:02:34. > :02:36.new information with which the honourable gentleman thinks the

:02:37. > :02:40.House should be favoured. Point of order. It has become apparent

:02:41. > :02:45.throughout this debate that there are US officials now briefing more

:02:46. > :02:49.detail than has been given by the Secretary of State today. He's

:02:50. > :02:52.hidden behind secrecy for the demonstration shake down, even

:02:53. > :02:55.though his own department authorised a book last year giving a full

:02:56. > :02:59.description of what happens. The chair of the Select Committee made a

:03:00. > :03:05.generous offer I thought to actually offer him to come before them. How

:03:06. > :03:10.can Parliament actually hold this department to account for this

:03:11. > :03:14.issue, if it is not going to even take up the generous offer which the

:03:15. > :03:17.right honourable gentleman has made? THE SPEAKER: I thank the honourable

:03:18. > :03:23.gentleman for his point of order. I would simply say that the Secretary

:03:24. > :03:29.of State will have heard the right honourable gentleman the chair of

:03:30. > :03:32.the Select Committee, extremely diligent and extraordinarily

:03:33. > :03:37.intelligence and persistent chair of the Select Committee, whom I've

:03:38. > :03:41.known a damn sight longer than the Secretary of State has known. How

:03:42. > :03:45.the Secretary of State wants to deal with the right honourable member is

:03:46. > :03:50.entirely a matter for his judgment to exercise to the best of his

:03:51. > :04:03.ability. We'll leave it there for now. To pick a fight with the

:04:04. > :04:08.chairman of the Select Committee is a rather stupid thing to do.

:04:09. > :04:16.THE SPEAKER: Order. Statement the Secretary of State for business,

:04:17. > :04:19.energy and industrial strategy. Thank you Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker,

:04:20. > :04:23.this is a hugely important moment for the United Kingdom. A moment

:04:24. > :04:28.when we must prepare a new strategy to earn a prosperous living in the

:04:29. > :04:32.years ahead. Leaving the European Union allows and requires Britain to

:04:33. > :04:39.make long-term decisions about our economic future. We will, of course,

:04:40. > :04:44.be ambitious in the upcoming negotiations and will secure the

:04:45. > :04:50.best possible access tore firms to trade with and trade in the European

:04:51. > :04:53.market. The competitiveness of our own economy is important. That's why

:04:54. > :04:58.the Government is committed to a modern industrial strategy. Its

:04:59. > :05:01.objective is to improve living standards and economic growth by

:05:02. > :05:05.increasing productivity and driving growth across the whole country.

:05:06. > :05:08.Today's green paper is part of an open dialogue to develop this

:05:09. > :05:13.strategy as the enduring foundation of an economy that works for

:05:14. > :05:16.everyone. Now Mr Speaker, we start from a position of considerable

:05:17. > :05:22.strength. We are the fifth biggest economy in the world, despite having

:05:23. > :05:25.the 22nd highest population. We've achieved higher levels of employment

:05:26. > :05:32.than ever before in our history, in fact 2. 7 million more than in 2010.

:05:33. > :05:35.We have businesses, research institutions and cultural

:05:36. > :05:41.achievements at the very forefront of global excellence. For all these

:05:42. > :05:44.reasons, we attract investment and talented individuals from around the

:05:45. > :05:49.world. But there are challenges that Britain must face up to now and in

:05:50. > :05:53.the years ahead. The first is to build on those strengths and to

:05:54. > :05:58.extend that excellence into the future. British excellence in key

:05:59. > :06:02.technologies, in professions, in research disciplines and

:06:03. > :06:07.institutions provide us with crucial competitive advantages. But we can't

:06:08. > :06:11.take them for granted. If other countries invest more in research

:06:12. > :06:19.and development and we don't, then we Cabinet expect -- can't expect to

:06:20. > :06:25.keep our technological lead in key sectors. The same goes for our

:06:26. > :06:30.record, as Europe's leading destination for inward investment or

:06:31. > :06:33.opposition as a centre for finance. Our competitors are upgrading

:06:34. > :06:40.infrastructure networks and reforming systems of governance. We

:06:41. > :06:43.too must strive for improvement. In industrial sectors from automotive

:06:44. > :06:47.and aerospace to financial and professional serviced and the

:06:48. > :06:50.creative industries, the UK has a global reputation, but the

:06:51. > :06:55.competition for new investment is fierce and unending. The conditions

:06:56. > :06:59.that have allowed UK investment destinations to succeed include the

:07:00. > :07:02.availability of supportive research programmes, relevant skills in local

:07:03. > :07:09.labour markets and capable supply chains. For continuing success,

:07:10. > :07:15.these foundations must be main tands and strengthened. -- maintained. The

:07:16. > :07:21.second challenge to make sure that we work to close the gap between our

:07:22. > :07:25.industries places and people and those that are less productive. For

:07:26. > :07:28.the global excellence of the UK's best companies, industries and

:07:29. > :07:32.places we have too many who lie behind the leaders. That's why on

:07:33. > :07:38.average workers in France, Germany and the United States produce about

:07:39. > :07:43.as much in five days as UK workers - as much in four days as UK workers

:07:44. > :07:47.do in five. It's why despite having the most prosperous local economy in

:07:48. > :07:53.northern Europe in Central London, we also have 12 of the 20 poorest

:07:54. > :08:00.among our closest neighbours. We must address these long tales of

:08:01. > :08:02.underperformance if we are to ensure sustainable growth in living

:08:03. > :08:07.standards. To do so is a huge opportunity for the whole nation to

:08:08. > :08:11.benefit from improved productivity, which is to say earning power in all

:08:12. > :08:14.parts of the country. The third challenge is to make the UK one of

:08:15. > :08:21.the most competitive places in the world to start or to grow a

:08:22. > :08:25.business. A fatal flaw of 1970s-style industrial strategies

:08:26. > :08:31.was their dominant focus on existing industries and the companies within

:08:32. > :08:36.them. Then mostly the bigger firms. Too often they became strategies of

:08:37. > :08:40.incumbency. It's worth noting that many of the most important companies

:08:41. > :08:45.in the world today didn't eeb exist 25 years ago. Unlike in the past,

:08:46. > :08:50.industrial strategy must be about creating the right conditions for

:08:51. > :08:55.new and growing enterprise to thrive not protecting the position of

:08:56. > :08:59.incombens. To meet these challenges, we've identified ten pillars around

:09:00. > :09:03.which the strategy is structured. That is to say, ten areas of action

:09:04. > :09:09.to drive growth across the economy and in every part of the country. To

:09:10. > :09:13.invest in science, research and innovation, to further develop our

:09:14. > :09:19.skills, to upgrate infrastructure, to support businesses to start and

:09:20. > :09:23.grow, to improve public procurement, to encourage trade and investment,

:09:24. > :09:26.to deliver affordable energy and clean growth, to cultivate world

:09:27. > :09:31.leading sectors, to drive growth across all parts of the country. And

:09:32. > :09:36.to create the right institutions to bring together sectors and places.

:09:37. > :09:39.Across all these areas, the Government is taking strategic

:09:40. > :09:45.decisions to keep British business on the front foot. For instance, the

:09:46. > :09:48.go ahead for major upgrades to infrastructure, such as Heathrow,

:09:49. > :09:52.and high speed two, in the Autumn Statement, the biggest inacross in

:09:53. > :09:56.research and development spending since 1979. In conjunction with

:09:57. > :10:01.today's green paper, we're launching a range of further measures. They

:10:02. > :10:05.include a gnaw preach to enabling existing and emerging sectors to

:10:06. > :10:12.grow through sector deals with reviews taking place regarding life

:10:13. > :10:14.sciences, ultralow emission vehicles, industrial digitalisation,

:10:15. > :10:19.nukeler and creative industries. To decide on the priority challenges

:10:20. > :10:26.for the new industrial strategy challenge fund and to embark On Tour

:10:27. > :10:35.overall of technical education, club capital funding to set up new ibs

:10:36. > :10:39.tugss of technology, to deliver education in science. In a world

:10:40. > :10:44.containing uncertainty, public policy should aim to be a

:10:45. > :10:50.counterforce for stability not to be an additional source of

:10:51. > :10:54.unpredictability. Our aim is to establish an industrial strategy for

:10:55. > :10:57.the long torm, to provide a policy framework against which major public

:10:58. > :11:02.and private sector investment decisions can be made about

:11:03. > :11:05.confidence. It's vital that the development of our strategy should

:11:06. > :11:09.take place with and not just for British enterprise. The full

:11:10. > :11:14.involvement of innovators, investors, job creators, workers and

:11:15. > :11:18.consumers in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is the

:11:19. > :11:22.only base is on which we can produce an enduring proemgra of action.

:11:23. > :11:29.That's why this is a green paper, a set of proposals for discussion and

:11:30. > :11:31.consideration and an invitation to all to contribute collaboratively to

:11:32. > :11:39.their development. Mr Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.

:11:40. > :11:47.Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you to the Secretary of State for

:11:48. > :11:51.his statement on at this location. Mr Deputy Speaker, today would be a

:11:52. > :11:55.moment this day if it was indeed the day that the Conservative Party

:11:56. > :12:00.finally broke free of the free market fundamentalism that has

:12:01. > :12:04.dogged them and of the country for decades. Will the Secretary of State

:12:05. > :12:06.tell us whether the new, active role for the state means the government

:12:07. > :12:12.is abandoning the approach of the last Prime Minister and Chancellor

:12:13. > :12:16.and his predecessor who banned the term industrial strategy from the

:12:17. > :12:21.previous Department? If so, I will make clear at the outset, that we

:12:22. > :12:25.welcome that, alongside the good intentions set out in the Green

:12:26. > :12:30.Paper today. The question is whether the details will live up to them.

:12:31. > :12:34.For example, action and skills will be welcomed given the challenges

:12:35. > :12:38.provided by automation and the pace of technological challenge and

:12:39. > :12:43.change. This government have already cut adult education by more than ?1

:12:44. > :12:49.billion. Can the Secretary of State is then how ?170 million of one-off

:12:50. > :12:53.capital spending can even begin to close the skills gap? Nor will the

:12:54. > :12:57.government be equipped to support an industrial strategy if his

:12:58. > :13:01.predecessor's cuts are implemented. Can he confirm the 2020 project has

:13:02. > :13:07.now been thrown into the bin along with the rest of his predecessor's

:13:08. > :13:10.legacy? He sets of the goal of developing a competitive edge in

:13:11. > :13:15.industries of the future, but how does he reconcile this with his

:13:16. > :13:19.government's plan to privatise the green investment bank? If the

:13:20. > :13:24.Secretary of State is serious about tackling the product of the crisis,

:13:25. > :13:33.will he finally bring investment in R and infrastructure in line with

:13:34. > :13:34.the Secretary of State promise a fundamental rethink of business

:13:35. > :13:37.rates which many businesses say would help them much more than and

:13:38. > :13:41.other single measure? And does he agree that a successful industrial

:13:42. > :13:46.strategy must include partnership and cooperation with the workforce?

:13:47. > :13:50.Yet the Green Paper doesn't mention trade unions once. Surely now is the

:13:51. > :13:56.time to promise that the toxic trade union Act will be repealed. Steel is

:13:57. > :14:00.a critical sector for our future but it is only mentioned once. Will he

:14:01. > :14:02.commit to implement the recommendations on procurement and

:14:03. > :14:10.supply chains contained in the all-party Parliamentary group on the

:14:11. > :14:13.out today? Because we cannot let our focus to high-tech manufacturing, Mr

:14:14. > :14:16.Deputy Speaker. An industrial strategy that narrows its focus to a

:14:17. > :14:21.future was sectors will let them the majority of businesses in this

:14:22. > :14:25.country and the people they employ. Can he tell us what this industrial

:14:26. > :14:29.strategy will do for small and medium enterprises who are huge

:14:30. > :14:32.employers for financial services which are our main exporters, for

:14:33. > :14:39.foundation industries or retail outlets that shape our high streets

:14:40. > :14:48.up and down the country? Finally, there is a glaring inconsistency

:14:49. > :14:50.between the noble aims paper and the threats made by the Prime Minister

:14:51. > :14:54.to turn Britain into an offshore tax haven if she feels in her Brexit

:14:55. > :14:58.negotiations. The industrial strategy has consisted of one of the

:14:59. > :15:02.made in secret with Nissan. If that be didn't last six months, how can

:15:03. > :15:07.business be confident of the other commitments in this Green Paper? It

:15:08. > :15:12.is often said, correctly, that an industrial strategy is a long-term

:15:13. > :15:16.project and that is what that must outlast particular governments. I

:15:17. > :15:20.can put our support for its broad aims from this side of the chamber,

:15:21. > :15:25.but I feel compelled to ask, can the Secretary of State can't on the same

:15:26. > :15:28.from his own side? When we debated the industrial strategy here one of

:15:29. > :15:33.his own honourable friends said they had two problems with it, one was

:15:34. > :15:36.industrial and the other was strategy. I hope the Secretary of

:15:37. > :15:41.State faces down such attitudes because now is not the time for half

:15:42. > :15:44.measures, Mr Speaker. The BBC reported this morning that the

:15:45. > :15:50.government want to be in the driving seat but not up to hands on the way.

:15:51. > :15:54.I look members opposite do not like safety legislation, but that is not

:15:55. > :15:58.an approach I would recommend if you keep making U-turns. If the

:15:59. > :16:02.Secretary of State and himself isolated in the coming months, my

:16:03. > :16:06.party will be happy to help. We too are ambitious for a proper

:16:07. > :16:13.industrial strategy, but it will only succeed if the means match at

:16:14. > :16:17.the end. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is true that

:16:18. > :16:21.an industrial strategy that wants to help all parts of the United

:16:22. > :16:25.Kingdom, I look forward to engagement with colleagues on all

:16:26. > :16:31.sides of the House you can represent the views of their constituencies. I

:16:32. > :16:35.have to say, I find myself relieved that the honourable gentleman is so

:16:36. > :16:40.grudging in his support for this, given that the last time he appeared

:16:41. > :16:45.at the dispatch box he said, and I quote, we on this side of the House

:16:46. > :16:49.the public good, Private bad. A disastrous signal to the investors

:16:50. > :16:57.that we want to invest in this country. I am pleased to be on the

:16:58. > :17:02.other side of that particular argument. When it comes to the

:17:03. > :17:08.points and the questions that he made, the commitment to transforming

:17:09. > :17:11.our technical education is one of the things that has been most widely

:17:12. > :17:17.welcomed by the business community up and down the country today. Given

:17:18. > :17:22.that this is a Green Paper, it is highly unusual for a Green Paper to

:17:23. > :17:26.commit any funds. This is about the consultation on the direction and

:17:27. > :17:29.the fact that the Chancellor has announced ?170 million for Institute

:17:30. > :17:34.of Technology is a great step forward. In terms of research and

:17:35. > :17:37.development, he asks about increasing the level of research and

:17:38. > :17:43.development, he might have missed when I said, in which the Chancellor

:17:44. > :17:49.has committed the biggest increase in research and development since

:17:50. > :17:53.1979. 1979, I recall as a period that included several years of

:17:54. > :17:57.Labour government, so by implication, it was a big increase

:17:58. > :18:01.that took place during the 13 years of Labour government. On business

:18:02. > :18:07.rates, we on this side of the House are legislating, putting forward

:18:08. > :18:12.legislation, this afternoon to have 100% retention of business rates by

:18:13. > :18:18.local councils so the interest of local businesses and the councils

:18:19. > :18:23.are aligned. He asks about the workforce. I was clear that the

:18:24. > :18:26.consultation is with employees as well and I am looking forward to a

:18:27. > :18:33.roundtable with the trade union Congress and its member

:18:34. > :18:37.organisations and Steve. Honesty he will see in the paper and approach

:18:38. > :18:40.to sector deals. I have already met with the chief executives of the

:18:41. > :18:45.steel companies and I am about to meet with the trade unions and look

:18:46. > :18:49.forward to that being one of the deals that is being put forward. He

:18:50. > :18:55.asks about involving small business. I should say that the chairman of

:18:56. > :18:58.the Federation of Small Businesses today has said the FSB has

:18:59. > :19:02.appreciated being part of the discussions with Business Secretary

:19:03. > :19:06.to ship the industrial strategy and it fits well with the small business

:19:07. > :19:12.community. It carries their endorsement. As far as the

:19:13. > :19:16.honourable gentleman's position on the fiscal arithmetic goes, he

:19:17. > :19:22.should reflect on the fact that the first foundation of any credible

:19:23. > :19:24.industrial strategy is confidence in the public finances that were left

:19:25. > :19:33.in such a disastrous state during the time that he was in government.

:19:34. > :19:39.As far as the unanimity of purpose goes, as far as the industrial

:19:40. > :19:42.strategy goes, as far as I understand from the port in recent

:19:43. > :19:46.days, he is having a consultation with himself about whether he can

:19:47. > :19:51.support his own party's position and trigger Article 50. In terms of the

:19:52. > :19:55.consultation we are engaged in, we will be looking forward to responses

:19:56. > :20:05.from all parts of the House as we form a strategy for the years ahead.

:20:06. > :20:08.Can I congratulate my friend on an intelligent approach set out in this

:20:09. > :20:13.Green Paper, building on what has been achieved over the last six

:20:14. > :20:18.years, but taking it much further in skills, signs and in the woods and

:20:19. > :20:20.powerhouse. Can I ask about universities sector which, of

:20:21. > :20:26.course, is a jewel in the crown of British industry and stop the new

:20:27. > :20:30.sector will be opened up just as in the 19th and 20th century we opened

:20:31. > :20:33.up universities to the arrival of London University and the redbrick

:20:34. > :20:37.universities. It now faces opposition in the House of Lords

:20:38. > :20:40.from people who represent the existing players and that sector.

:20:41. > :20:47.Will he reassure me he will see off proposition? Let me say to my

:20:48. > :20:52.honourable friend that he will see in the approach we are sitting

:20:53. > :20:56.forward here a vigorous continuation of many of the measures, such as the

:20:57. > :21:01.northern powerhouse, that he championed in his time in government

:21:02. > :21:07.that is making such a big difference in the north and in other parts of

:21:08. > :21:10.the country. I can confirm that, with my honourable friend and our

:21:11. > :21:18.colleagues in the House of Lords, we will drive the reforms that have

:21:19. > :21:21.proven so successful in the past in expanding the institutions that

:21:22. > :21:25.contribute to our higher educational excellence. The standard and is

:21:26. > :21:28.standing of higher education in this country has never been higher and

:21:29. > :21:34.that is a reflection of the sounds of the policies pursued in recent

:21:35. > :21:42.years. Can I give a cautious welcome to this proposal. I think it is on

:21:43. > :21:45.us in some ways in its reflection of the state of the economy, in other

:21:46. > :21:51.ways it is brutally honest in terms of the problems such as the regional

:21:52. > :21:56.disparity and the problem of productivity. It recognises some

:21:57. > :22:02.successful sectors, automotive, aviation and Aberdeen as an oil and

:22:03. > :22:08.gas hob. In terms of these problems, which are not new, how can he ensure

:22:09. > :22:11.these same mistakes are not repeated and in support of new industries,

:22:12. > :22:15.how will he ensure existing ones are not sacrificed in that process

:22:16. > :22:18.question mark when it comes to research and development, the new

:22:19. > :22:22.money that has been allocated, can he confirm that will be in addition

:22:23. > :22:27.to anything that would have come from the European Union and will

:22:28. > :22:30.give long-term commitment to match European Union funding? Can he

:22:31. > :22:34.outlined how much of that spending will be outside of London and the

:22:35. > :22:38.south-east Finland? In terms of regional disparities and EU

:22:39. > :22:41.structural funds, imagine how much worse that regional disparity would

:22:42. > :22:46.have been without those funding streams. Can he commit to long-term

:22:47. > :22:50.replacement for those funds? When it comes to renewables and carbon

:22:51. > :22:53.capture and storage, you will not be surprised I am disappointed by the

:22:54. > :22:57.lack of ambition in what will be an industry worth hundreds of billions,

:22:58. > :23:02.if not trillions, of dollars in the near future. When it comes to

:23:03. > :23:06.sectoral dealers, will he consider one for renewables and will he work

:23:07. > :23:11.with the Scottish Government in terms of how that can be done in

:23:12. > :23:14.Scotland? Access to finance is identified as a problem, I shared

:23:15. > :23:18.the concerns about the green investment bank, it is short-sighted

:23:19. > :23:21.to sell off when one of the key industry sectors need access to

:23:22. > :23:25.funding and that is the perfect vehicle to do it. Can I ask about

:23:26. > :23:30.the consultation and how this process will work with the devolved

:23:31. > :23:33.governments? Finally, however that this industrial strategy might be,

:23:34. > :23:37.we have to accept that the biggest threat to the Scottish economy and

:23:38. > :23:42.the UK economy is a lack of access to the markets and the skilled

:23:43. > :23:46.people that come through our EU membership. Will he give serious

:23:47. > :23:48.consideration to the Scottish Government plans that would see

:23:49. > :23:54.Scotland maintain its membership of the European single market? Can I

:23:55. > :24:00.thank the honourable gentleman for his thoughtful opening remarks and I

:24:01. > :24:06.am impressed he has got to page 91 already in this document. It shows

:24:07. > :24:13.his diligence. He is right in saying this is brutally honest. If you are

:24:14. > :24:17.going to look to the future and have an industrial strategy that reflects

:24:18. > :24:23.on the challenges that we have then you need to be clear eyed about it

:24:24. > :24:28.and, when it comes to the force of technical education, for example,

:24:29. > :24:32.when it comes to the imbalances that we have, some very prosperous areas,

:24:33. > :24:41.some that can catch up, then it is right to be ambitious. When it comes

:24:42. > :24:44.to research and development of the honourable gentleman mentioned, the

:24:45. > :24:49.money the Chancellor announced in the Autumn Statement was separate

:24:50. > :24:56.from whatever might be decided on the European funds. It was

:24:57. > :25:02.independently granted and is available to universities and

:25:03. > :25:09.research institutions through that. The consultation on how that money

:25:10. > :25:12.is spent is part of the consultation on this exercise. It is for research

:25:13. > :25:20.and development and one of the points we make is that we have often

:25:21. > :25:25.been excellent at producing brilliant new ideas, but less

:25:26. > :25:29.successful at commercialising them. So, to push further on how we can

:25:30. > :25:34.translate good ideas into practice is a very important feature of that.

:25:35. > :25:41.He mentions renewables, very important in Scotland, of course.

:25:42. > :25:45.The emissions reduction plan that is in preparation at the moment will

:25:46. > :25:50.address that particularly, but the commitment that we have in a chapter

:25:51. > :25:55.of the Green Paper on the green economy has a big commitment to

:25:56. > :25:59.doing what we can to make sure that we obtain industrial advantage from

:26:00. > :26:04.the investments we are breaking in green technology. Finally, he

:26:05. > :26:09.mentions what he regards as the biggest threat to the economy as

:26:10. > :26:14.being the exit from the European Union. I would say to him, the

:26:15. > :26:17.United Kingdom economy has been very successful in recent weeks and I

:26:18. > :26:21.would suggest the biggest threat that would be if that successful

:26:22. > :26:31.alliance of our There is so much to welcome in this

:26:32. > :26:33.very thoughtful report and I congratulate my right honourable

:26:34. > :26:38.friend and his team for delivering this. When it comes to

:26:39. > :26:40.infrastructure, could he say more about how this unprecedented

:26:41. > :26:44.investment in infrastructure our Government is making will deliver

:26:45. > :26:47.export growth? He I'm sure will not be surprised but may be disappointed

:26:48. > :26:58.to know that our export potential particularly from our rail

:26:59. > :27:03.independent have -- our rail industry is outstripped. My

:27:04. > :27:08.honourable friend knows how important making connections are

:27:09. > :27:12.between places. It is a very important means to provide the

:27:13. > :27:17.under-Pinocheting of growth. She will be aware that through the fund

:27:18. > :27:25.that has been established, the national infrastructure fund, this

:27:26. > :27:29.will rise by 60% from this year to 2022, that is a huge investment and

:27:30. > :27:34.appropriate one to make sure that the quality of our infrastructure

:27:35. > :27:42.keeps pace with the investments our competitors are making. May I warmly

:27:43. > :27:45.welcome and support Government endorsement of an industrial

:27:46. > :27:50.strategy that is long-term and interventionist. I hope it will play

:27:51. > :27:54.an active role in ensuring workers are upskilled and receive high wages

:27:55. > :27:58.and that British firms can scale up and become more enterprising,

:27:59. > :28:04.competitive and productive. May I ask the Secretary of State what's

:28:05. > :28:07.different this time from previous it ragss of industrial strategy,

:28:08. > :28:11.include those of which he was a Cabinet minister. What will be the

:28:12. > :28:15.short-term, medium and long-term metrics by which this will be

:28:16. > :28:19.evaluated in terms of success or failure? I'm grateful to the

:28:20. > :28:23.honourable gentleman for his welcome. He says it's an

:28:24. > :28:27.interventionist strategy. It's true I think the Government should be

:28:28. > :28:32.engaged with the economy to make sure that we have the right

:28:33. > :28:39.conditions for success. But I would also point out the real importance

:28:40. > :28:45.of making sure that the openness, that the ability for competition to

:28:46. > :28:48.have its full run in our economy is vital to our success. I know as

:28:49. > :28:52.chairman of the Business Select Committee he will reflect that. I

:28:53. > :28:55.look forward to the Select Committee's inquiry on this. He asks

:28:56. > :29:01.how it's different from its predecessors. I would suggest two

:29:02. > :29:05.ways in particular. One is he will have observed that the, many of the

:29:06. > :29:08.themes that I've talked about are not about investing in particular

:29:09. > :29:12.companies or subsidising particular businesses. But they are

:29:13. > :29:16.cross-cutting, they're horizontal, if you like. ,. . They're looking at

:29:17. > :29:21.skills across the economy, looking at infrastructure, look being at

:29:22. > :29:28.importance of place and differences between places, of science and

:29:29. > :29:33.research. So they are looking at cross-economy measures. That is a

:29:34. > :29:36.different approach from that has been taken in the past. The second

:29:37. > :29:42.thing I would draw to as attention, a lot of efforts in industrial

:29:43. > :29:47.policy in the past have been correctly about innovation but have

:29:48. > :29:52.concentrated just op new discoveries -- on new discoveries and new

:29:53. > :29:59.inventions. That's very important, we need to extent our excellence

:30:00. > :30:03.into the future. But there is a big opportunity to make differences for

:30:04. > :30:08.the following companies and the regions that are not competing at

:30:09. > :30:11.the top level. If you can really increase productivity there, you can

:30:12. > :30:19.make a big difference to the whole economy. That hasn't been the focus

:30:20. > :30:21.of previous industrial strategies. May I congrape late my right

:30:22. > :30:27.honourable friend in a bold and ambitious statement. May I give him

:30:28. > :30:31.a unique, once in a lifetime chance to get his technical college, his

:30:32. > :30:37.new training plans off to a really tremendous start. In Haywards Heath

:30:38. > :30:42.in my constituency, there is a sixth form college bankrupted by Labour's

:30:43. > :30:47.ferocious education cuts and corporate governments that will have

:30:48. > :30:50.done credit to Al Capone. It lies empty. It would be a perfect

:30:51. > :30:57.starting place for one of his excellent new colleges. I'm grateful

:30:58. > :30:59.for the early pitch from my right honourable friend he highlights that

:31:00. > :31:04.it's very important that we should have right across the country a

:31:05. > :31:07.better and more reliable ability to give technical education to those

:31:08. > :31:12.who can benefit from it. There are pane jobs that are available in West

:31:13. > :31:20.Sussex, but are not accessible if people don't have the right skills.

:31:21. > :31:23.This will help solve that. I welcome the Government's acceptance finally

:31:24. > :31:28.that we have got a skills challenge in this country, particularly with

:31:29. > :31:33.the long trail of underachievement. How does the Secretary of State

:31:34. > :31:36.square this with the huge cuts faced to further education and adult

:31:37. > :31:40.education over the last six-and-a-half years of his

:31:41. > :31:44.Government? And why isn't there more emphasis on what can be done to

:31:45. > :31:47.really close that productivity gap if we invest in child care and get

:31:48. > :31:56.more women back to work, not even mentioned in his report? The first

:31:57. > :32:00.thing, as I said to her friend on the frontbench, the task that the

:32:01. > :32:06.Conservative-led Government had in restoring Sanity to the public Fire

:32:07. > :32:09.Services is -- finances is foundational to a successful

:32:10. > :32:16.strategy. She will be aware in the field of child care, this Government

:32:17. > :32:20.has been particularly innovative in extending child care to large parts

:32:21. > :32:25.of the country, many people who previously were not able to access

:32:26. > :32:30.child care and that is an important foundation on which we build. Would

:32:31. > :32:36.my right honourable friend agrow with me that many of the highly

:32:37. > :32:39.impressive propositions on technical education within this green paper

:32:40. > :32:44.owe their owe gin to the work undertaken by our honourable friend,

:32:45. > :32:47.the member for Grantham when he grew up -- drew up the skills plan laid

:32:48. > :32:52.before the House in July. Would he full agree with me that the success

:32:53. > :32:55.of specialist maths schools at Kings College London and Exeter university

:32:56. > :32:58.is an example that other universities should follow if they

:32:59. > :33:03.hope to hang onto their current high level of tuition fees? What I would

:33:04. > :33:09.say to my right honourable friend is first of all, to endorse warmly the

:33:10. > :33:14.acknowledgement that he makes to our honourable friend the member for

:33:15. > :33:18.Grantham and Stanford. He made a massive contribution. He's

:33:19. > :33:23.absolutely right, in fact I text him yesterday to flag that many of the

:33:24. > :33:29.proposals there owe their owe gin to our honourable friend. We wish him

:33:30. > :33:35.well in his recovery. I commend very warmly the examples of the maths

:33:36. > :33:39.schools that my right honourable friend friend mentioned. To expand

:33:40. > :33:46.maths schools across the country so that people with a real flair for

:33:47. > :33:50.maths can be pushed further and be equipped to go even higher in their

:33:51. > :33:53.ambitions I think is a fantastic thing, whether it's in Exeter or in

:33:54. > :34:00.London, they are a good template for others to follow. My right

:34:01. > :34:05.honourable friend for Manchester Central pointed this out, isn't one

:34:06. > :34:09.of the things that has held industrial strategies back in this

:34:10. > :34:13.country for decades has been the skills gap? In the green paper that

:34:14. > :34:18.the Secretary of State has brought forward, there's mention of an

:34:19. > :34:21.overhaul of technical and reindicational education. Can I say

:34:22. > :34:28.to him, I think what this country needs is a cultural change, a shift

:34:29. > :34:32.to valuing technical and vocational education and skills education as

:34:33. > :34:34.highly as academic education. Until that changes, the Secretary of State

:34:35. > :34:39.will not achieve what he wants, however much all of us want him to.

:34:40. > :34:43.I agree with the right honourable gentleman's analysis. I hope he'll

:34:44. > :34:47.join with us in making that change. I hope he will approach this with a

:34:48. > :34:52.spirit of both optimism and determination to make that change

:34:53. > :34:55.that the country needs. I very much welcome this common

:34:56. > :35:00.sense statement. Does my right honourable friend agree with me that

:35:01. > :35:03.the pillars will provide the ideal opportunities to enable regions to

:35:04. > :35:07.use their assets to the best effect for more balanced UK economy? And

:35:08. > :35:12.also further grow the Midlands engine for growth? I do agree with

:35:13. > :35:17.my honourable friend. We are one of the most centralised countries in

:35:18. > :35:22.the world. But it is patently the case that our levels of prosperity

:35:23. > :35:26.are not uniformly high. I think we should learn from other countries

:35:27. > :35:31.and learn from what has worked well when we have devolved powers and

:35:32. > :35:34.given people who know what is going to make a difference locally, a

:35:35. > :35:41.better ability to take those decisions. The minister's right to

:35:42. > :35:46.make upgrading infrastructure a pillar of his industrial strategy. I

:35:47. > :35:51.welcome the investment in HS2, how can he claim to be providing greater

:35:52. > :35:57.certainty and a clear long-term direction when the East Midlands top

:35:58. > :36:00.transport priority, electrification of Midland main line has been

:36:01. > :36:03.paused, unpaused, delayed by four years and now dropped all together.

:36:04. > :36:07.Doesn't he understand that it follows up the previous question

:36:08. > :36:12.that this uncertainty damages our economy, damages the East Midlands

:36:13. > :36:17.industry and actually harms its potential to grow exports? I would

:36:18. > :36:21.have thought she would welcome the commitment to upgrading

:36:22. > :36:27.infrastructure across the country, right across the country. This is a

:36:28. > :36:30.green paper that is proposing priorities for the years ahead. I

:36:31. > :36:37.would hope that she would welcome that. As well as welcoming the fact

:36:38. > :36:41.that there is a 60% increase in the investment in infrastructure that

:36:42. > :36:45.the Chancellor has provided, which will be of benefit I hope to the

:36:46. > :36:52.East Midlands and other parts of the country. I strongly welcome this

:36:53. > :37:01.paper in particular three elements of it, the battery re -- review, and

:37:02. > :37:04.the considerable efforts to create a hub for autonomous vehicles. Those

:37:05. > :37:08.three together should give the UK the opportunity to become one of the

:37:09. > :37:11.world's leading producers of the electric and autonomous vehicles

:37:12. > :37:15.that we will all be driving 20 or 30 years from now? I agree with my

:37:16. > :37:20.right honourable friend. What is important, what is the opportunity

:37:21. > :37:24.of an industrial strategy is to align policies that reinforce each

:37:25. > :37:30.other. We have some of the world's best researchers in energy storage.

:37:31. > :37:34.We have one of the world's most effective and efficient and

:37:35. > :37:41.innovative automotive sectors. We are one of the leaders in renewable

:37:42. > :37:44.energy through offshore wind. If you bring them together, then one

:37:45. > :37:51.reinforces the other and gives us this chance to be a world leader in

:37:52. > :37:56.a set of technologies that seems likely on any reasonable estimate to

:37:57. > :38:02.be taken up around the world in the future. The last thing we need is

:38:03. > :38:05.10% tariffs imposed on autonomous vehicles. The Secretary of State is

:38:06. > :38:09.right to make the point that we've been the leading destination in

:38:10. > :38:12.Europe for overseas investment, but much of that was from companies

:38:13. > :38:16.outside Europe wanting to gain access to the single market which

:38:17. > :38:20.the Prime Minister's now told us we're going to leave. Does he

:38:21. > :38:23.believe that the UK can remain Europe's leading destination for

:38:24. > :38:31.inward investment outside the single market? Yes, I do, Mr Speaker. What

:38:32. > :38:35.I said right at the beginning of my statement was that as a Government

:38:36. > :38:41.and as a country, I hope, that believes in free trade, we want to

:38:42. > :38:46.have the best possible access to the single market and we continue to be,

:38:47. > :38:51.as I said, a very attractive destination but we want to be even

:38:52. > :38:57.more attractive, which is why to set out the commitments that we're

:38:58. > :39:02.making on upgrading or science and research, on building better

:39:03. > :39:06.technical skills for example, on improving our infrastructure, these

:39:07. > :39:09.are investments. These are policies that will enhance the reputation and

:39:10. > :39:16.attractiveness of the British economy. Will the Government, under

:39:17. > :39:19.this new strategy, when reviewing procurement make sure that we find

:39:20. > :39:22.all those areas where British companies could supply better and

:39:23. > :39:27.cheaper and give them the contracts. At the moment, we're importing large

:39:28. > :39:30.quantity of military vehicles, building materials, steel for

:39:31. > :39:34.submarines, medical equipment, things that we could make

:39:35. > :39:39.competitively here if we have an intelligence Government customer. My

:39:40. > :39:42.right honourable friend is right. He will see various proposals on

:39:43. > :39:47.procurement which I hope will have his support. One I emphasise is

:39:48. > :39:52.opening up Government procurement to smaller and medium sized enterprises

:39:53. > :39:55.who too often find that the bureaucracy associated with

:39:56. > :40:01.procurement regimes in the part has literally kept them off the list.

:40:02. > :40:05.That is something we can reform. The green paper rightly identifies the

:40:06. > :40:07.crucial role that better connectivity to regional airports

:40:08. > :40:15.could play in growing economies and highlights the vital importance of

:40:16. > :40:17.the route from Newcastle airport increasing imports from the

:40:18. > :40:24.north-east. Could the Secretary of State confirm what discussions he is

:40:25. > :40:25.having with his Treasury colleagues about devolving Air Passenger Duty

:40:26. > :40:35.on airports like Newcastle? I think in the context of a Green

:40:36. > :40:39.Paper on industrial strategy I will with the representations from the

:40:40. > :40:43.honourable lady. I am pleased she acknowledges and recognises the

:40:44. > :40:46.emphasis we have placed on connection is not just through road

:40:47. > :40:52.and rail airport connections to every region of the country and the

:40:53. > :40:59.importance of establishing links to other nations with which we have

:41:00. > :41:03.good trading relationships. Could I ask my right honourable friend how

:41:04. > :41:07.much priority he gives to the establishment of a digital real way

:41:08. > :41:12.and will he encourage network in their plans to bring this technology

:41:13. > :41:18.to the great Eastern Main line and hopefully the West Anglia mainline

:41:19. > :41:21.as well? The nutrients which are on order can be equipped in advance to

:41:22. > :41:28.take advantage, rather than be fitted retrospectively at great

:41:29. > :41:33.expense. -- the nutrients. He is right and it is one of the proposals

:41:34. > :41:44.in the Green Paper I hope will have his support the concentration. The

:41:45. > :41:49.Green Paper rightly focuses on productivity, but there is one area

:41:50. > :41:54.of infrastructure where Britain lacks behind all our competitors and

:41:55. > :41:59.that is with the cost of childcare. Childcare in Britain costs more than

:42:00. > :42:05.every other OECD country apart from Switzerland and takes up over 40% of

:42:06. > :42:09.the average wage is up yet, it is hardly mentioned in his Green Paper.

:42:10. > :42:14.This is the way to liberate the talent of women. What will he do

:42:15. > :42:18.about it? It is a Green Paper that invites comments and proposals and I

:42:19. > :42:25.look forward to the honourable lady's response to the Green Paper.

:42:26. > :42:27.As I said, this government has taken seriously the importance of

:42:28. > :42:33.childcare in allowing women and men to return to work. We have made good

:42:34. > :42:39.progress in it, I would be interested in her response to the

:42:40. > :42:43.consultation. I welcome the opportunity to join the Secretary of

:42:44. > :42:46.State on his visit to the Warwick Manufacturing group on Friday. An

:42:47. > :42:50.institution which represents many important elements of this

:42:51. > :42:53.industrial strategy. Would my right honourable friend agreed that the

:42:54. > :42:58.Midlands can play a leading role in the development of such a strategy

:42:59. > :43:02.being home to world-class research, advanced manufacturing in the

:43:03. > :43:09.skilled workforce? I agree with my honourable friend. One thing I found

:43:10. > :43:13.striking in visiting the National automotive innovation Centre, a

:43:14. > :43:17.fantastic centre that is being built, is the fact that, as well as

:43:18. > :43:22.having research and development facilities that will be available to

:43:23. > :43:28.large but also small challenger firms, there is, on the same side,

:43:29. > :43:32.is good for apprentices that will take in 1000 apprentices every year

:43:33. > :43:36.to equip them with the skills that the motor industry across the West

:43:37. > :43:40.Midlands can benefit from. That is a good example of how research and

:43:41. > :43:47.development can tie up with this agenda of driving improved standards

:43:48. > :43:52.of technical skills. If the Secretary of State is serious about

:43:53. > :43:57.building an industrial strategy that works for the whole country and one

:43:58. > :44:00.which encourages and maximises the opportunity for research and

:44:01. > :44:04.innovation, debt must be space in that for the development of marine

:44:05. > :44:11.renewable energy, wave and tidal power. The word leading work in that

:44:12. > :44:13.is being done in my constituency at the European Union Marine energy

:44:14. > :44:17.Centre, can he come and see for himself the way in which our island

:44:18. > :44:22.communities can help them build a strategy that he says he wants to

:44:23. > :44:29.create? I would be delighted to visit his constituency. He will see

:44:30. > :44:35.when he reads the Green Paper, I know it is quite a time commitment,

:44:36. > :44:42.but I am sure it is worth it, there are a number of sources of support

:44:43. > :44:47.for innovation. The competitive way, the research and development funding

:44:48. > :44:51.is available for scientists and researchers to bid for. He will also

:44:52. > :44:57.note there is a chapter on the green economy that is making a suggestion

:44:58. > :45:02.as to how we can get industrial advantage as well as keeping costs

:45:03. > :45:11.low from our renewables. Both routes might be applicable to the green and

:45:12. > :45:15.tidal technologies. I have been calling for ambitious, bold and

:45:16. > :45:19.visionary redevelopment plans for the power station planned to attract

:45:20. > :45:24.businesses that will create highly skilled jobs. Can I welcome his

:45:25. > :45:29.statement on the Green Paper and does he agree with me that the new,

:45:30. > :45:36.modern industrial strategy will provide the framework and conditions

:45:37. > :45:39.to help deliver this vision? I am grateful for the question. I

:45:40. > :45:45.remember visiting the site with and I think it has great potential to be

:45:46. > :45:50.a home for not just the start up businesses that are very important

:45:51. > :45:56.in our economy, but also as a place in which technical skills can be

:45:57. > :46:03.imparted to the next generation of her constituents so they can have

:46:04. > :46:08.good, well and satisfying jobs. I welcome some of the things in the

:46:09. > :46:12.Green Paper, looking at the future of industry and our strategy moving

:46:13. > :46:17.forward, however, in order to do that we have two secure what

:46:18. > :46:21.industry we have now. In light of the comments from the CEO of Nissan

:46:22. > :46:25.saying he would revisit the competitiveness of the plant in

:46:26. > :46:30.Sunderland, could the minister tell us what his view is on that in

:46:31. > :46:38.securing the jobs in Sunderland that already exist? Well, the decision to

:46:39. > :46:42.back Sunderland and to build the two new models here was a very

:46:43. > :46:49.significant moment for her constituents and for the country. It

:46:50. > :46:51.is true to say that all investors, domestic or international, will

:46:52. > :46:58.constantly look to make sure that they are competitive and what this

:46:59. > :47:01.document, every page of this Green Paper, does is show our

:47:02. > :47:06.determination to make sure that this economy is competitive now and into

:47:07. > :47:13.the future, to take the actions that will make it so. May I welcome this

:47:14. > :47:19.wide-ranging discussion of government policies at this time?

:47:20. > :47:26.Even if the broad survey of good things outlined will unleash a

:47:27. > :47:30.torrent of insatiable demands, not least from the Davos business

:47:31. > :47:35.leaders jetting back with their government advisers to barge their

:47:36. > :47:40.way to the front of the table. Will my right honourable friend assure me

:47:41. > :47:43.that his agenda will be set by entrepreneurs? Would he be honest

:47:44. > :47:47.that for every sector that is favoured Adobe sectors of the

:47:48. > :47:52.economy that we can and will he assure me that he understands that

:47:53. > :47:55.in his Department there are no magic levers saying raise productivity or

:47:56. > :48:02.improve skills? The eluded his predecessors, they will likely elude

:48:03. > :48:06.him. In order to get running can have brevity in questions and

:48:07. > :48:17.answers? By honourable friend is right. What I would say is the

:48:18. > :48:19.essence of our strategy has to be to support the ability of people to

:48:20. > :48:24.compete and enter and make life difficult for the incumbents. There

:48:25. > :48:29.are no cosy club's for the incumbents. That is the test of our

:48:30. > :48:39.support in sectors as to whether this helps new businesses emerge.

:48:40. > :48:42.That is extremely important. The Federation of Small Businesses

:48:43. > :48:46.reported last year that significant numbers of women are starting small

:48:47. > :48:50.businesses and enterprises. Is he not therefore surprised, as the

:48:51. > :48:53.House is, but there is no mention of women in this industrial strategy,

:48:54. > :48:59.no mention of inclusion and very little mention of diversity? Will he

:49:00. > :49:08.undertake to review that? To this document we want to close the gaps

:49:09. > :49:13.that mean we do not achieve powerful performance and that is absolutely

:49:14. > :49:20.the case when it comes to the position of women at the highest

:49:21. > :49:24.levels in science and research. As minister in the Department in the

:49:25. > :49:30.past I have been successful in driving the appointment under my

:49:31. > :49:37.gift to increase the proportion of women at the top level. She is

:49:38. > :49:40.absolutely right, when there is an underrepresentation of people of

:49:41. > :49:49.talent it is the whole economy that suffers from that and that should be

:49:50. > :49:53.corrected. I strongly welcome the statement and consultation paper

:49:54. > :49:57.today. When you visit large and innovative manufacturers like Toyota

:49:58. > :50:00.or Erebus, they all speak about the importance of relationships with

:50:01. > :50:03.their local further education colleges. Does he agree with me one

:50:04. > :50:08.of the objectives of the strategy should be to replicate the examples

:50:09. > :50:13.of excellence and drive up standards within the further education sector

:50:14. > :50:17.is even more employers share in world class skills education? He is

:50:18. > :50:21.right and one of the proposals on which we are consulting is to have

:50:22. > :50:24.better connections between local employers and further education to

:50:25. > :50:29.nature that the skills that are being provided are those that can be

:50:30. > :50:37.taken up immediately in those industries. I very much welcome the

:50:38. > :50:41.statement by the Secretary of State and his indication that he will work

:50:42. > :50:45.across the country, including the devolved administrations. On the

:50:46. > :50:49.issue of skills and low-carbon, we both want to see low carbon energy

:50:50. > :50:54.sector being successful. He mentions nuclear. One of the concerns that

:50:55. > :50:57.nuclear workers have is that the conditions have been undermined by

:50:58. > :51:01.this government. Will he agree to work with me and meet with me to

:51:02. > :51:07.discuss this issue because we need those skill bases to build on for

:51:08. > :51:10.the future? I am grateful for his welcome and I didn't say to the

:51:11. > :51:13.honourable gentleman on the front bench for the SNP that part of our

:51:14. > :51:17.proposals is that we will work closely with the devolved

:51:18. > :51:20.administrations in all parts of the United Kingdom and I look forward to

:51:21. > :51:26.doing that. I am always happy to meet with the honourable gentleman.

:51:27. > :51:32.I certainly take great pleasure in welcoming the character and ambition

:51:33. > :51:37.of this industrial strategy. It is exactly the right direction of

:51:38. > :51:40.travel. I also salute the focus on technical skills. Does he agree it

:51:41. > :51:44.is important to create the correct pathway through our schools systems

:51:45. > :51:50.to those institutions so we encourage young people from the very

:51:51. > :51:56.start? That is a combination which will lead to higher wages and high

:51:57. > :51:59.skills. The honourable gentleman, the chairman of the Education Select

:52:00. > :52:03.Committee, is right. I hope he and his committee might make a

:52:04. > :52:07.contribution to the consultation to help us as we establish precisely

:52:08. > :52:15.that pathway that start in school but actually goes beyond the

:52:16. > :52:18.commencement of work, because people often need to retrain and take on

:52:19. > :52:26.new skills during their working life. I welcome the desire to

:52:27. > :52:29.transform technical education, something of a recurring theme ever

:52:30. > :52:37.since the days of Prince Albert. Trying to help make it a six as this

:52:38. > :52:42.time, could he pay greater attention to the 14 to 19-year-olds,

:52:43. > :52:45.university and technical colleges like at Aston University and could

:52:46. > :52:49.persuade him to also give the training levy to the newly elected

:52:50. > :52:52.regional mayors, because then they can make strategic training

:52:53. > :52:56.decisions which are appropriate for the regions they represent? She

:52:57. > :53:04.makes two important points. The first is it is vital and others in

:53:05. > :53:07.the past have recognised the importance of technical education

:53:08. > :53:13.and improving it. That is certainly our intention. In terms of the

:53:14. > :53:16.particular proposal she makes, if she would like to discuss it with

:53:17. > :53:21.me, she might want to feed into the consultation. Where does the crucial

:53:22. > :53:27.role of free markets said in this strategy? It runs through every page

:53:28. > :53:48.of this strategy. Newport has suffered grievously from

:53:49. > :53:53.the neglect of steel. It is now having a mini revival with the

:53:54. > :53:58.reopening of sight. Stephen does not travel well or cheaply. Does he

:53:59. > :54:03.agreed that if there is to be a new prosperity for manufacturing

:54:04. > :54:10.industry to be created, it must be constructed on foundations of

:54:11. > :54:13.Stephen? What I say to the honourable gentleman is that Stephen

:54:14. > :54:17.is a very important sector. It needs to compete in the world in which we

:54:18. > :54:24.find ourselves and the discussions I have been having with the steel

:54:25. > :54:29.industry is that they are based around a strategy that they are

:54:30. > :54:38.pulling together to make British steel and competitive in the years

:54:39. > :54:44.ahead. The new model in the Hereford University has received tremendous

:54:45. > :54:48.support from its departments. This ?170 million promised in this

:54:49. > :54:52.statement, will it be too late for Herefordshire as we have only got to

:54:53. > :55:00.the 20th of January to apply for funding? By honourable friend is

:55:01. > :55:03.right to point out the Christians of his friends and neighbours in

:55:04. > :55:08.Herefordshire in making their proposal. It is a good example of

:55:09. > :55:15.precisely the reform that we need to see. I think the prospects are

:55:16. > :55:19.pretty bright for it. There was no mention of exclusion and communities

:55:20. > :55:23.like Ashley which still mourning the loss of those well-paid jobs in the

:55:24. > :55:31.pits. I understand that this is a Green Paper, but what new jobs or

:55:32. > :55:37.tangible differences does the energy Secretary

:55:38. > :55:46.A it is very much a reference to communities such as she mentions.

:55:47. > :55:53.When I talk about places and parts of the country that have fallen

:55:54. > :55:58.behind the best performing in terms of productivity, these are the areas

:55:59. > :56:01.and the towns we have in mind. It is essential it seems to me that one of

:56:02. > :56:08.the foundations for future prosperity is to ensure the level of

:56:09. > :56:11.skills is higher than it has been for the industries that are

:56:12. > :56:15.expanding and this is particularly in areas such as hers that this

:56:16. > :56:21.transformation can have the greatest effect. I was delighted earlier to

:56:22. > :56:28.welcome the Prime Minister and Secretary of State to the... To

:56:29. > :56:35.unveil industrial strategy for the UK. Will he agree with me the other

:56:36. > :56:40.556 million boost for the Northern powerhouse, along 4.7 billion for

:56:41. > :56:45.science, technology and innovation will help create high skilled, high

:56:46. > :57:13.waged jobs hoping to bridge the North-South divide?

:57:14. > :57:20.My honourable friend mentions two things. One is a devolution through

:57:21. > :57:24.local growth funds which is making a big difference, putting more funds

:57:25. > :57:27.in the hands of people with the knowledge of what is needed locally

:57:28. > :57:32.to make a difference and of course, the big investment in research and

:57:33. > :57:37.development and impressive facilities will make very good use.

:57:38. > :57:44.Mobile technology is an important part of modern infrastructure. But I

:57:45. > :57:49.see Secretary of State to be cautious looking at Ofcom figures? I

:57:50. > :57:53.suspect many of us here have looked at maps saying yes, universal

:57:54. > :57:56.coverage, no problems at all. But when you go on the ground, you find

:57:57. > :58:03.it is phenomenally difficult. According to Ofcom, this building

:58:04. > :58:09.has perfect access to all four mobile signals. It is not true. The

:58:10. > :58:14.honourable gentleman makes an important point. When we talk about

:58:15. > :58:17.digital infrastructure, whether mobile or broadband, it is

:58:18. > :58:23.important, and for businesses who depend on it, it is the

:58:24. > :58:25.dependability and the reliability, not any theoretical availability. It

:58:26. > :58:36.is important and part of the approach. The Secretary of State

:58:37. > :58:40.pointed out 70s industrial strategy exclusively focused on big industry.

:58:41. > :58:45.Will he ensure his strategy does not repeat the mistake in exclusively

:58:46. > :58:49.focusing on large, mature economies at the expense of medium-sized

:58:50. > :58:53.emerging economies which together represent the future? He's up to

:58:54. > :59:02.Lula Wright and it is one of the reasons why much of the proposals

:59:03. > :59:08.about crosscutting are about certain firms are why there's a particular

:59:09. > :59:16.emphasis on helping small businesses grow and new businesses to be set

:59:17. > :59:19.up. Steel is a key infrastructure product for all those infrastructure

:59:20. > :59:32.projects he mentioned in his statement. I very much welcome his

:59:33. > :59:35.statement that there is likely to be deal for steel. What the said

:59:36. > :59:42.industry need to do to achieve that sector deal? The steel industry is

:59:43. > :59:48.already embarking on a consideration of how it can plan its future. I've

:59:49. > :59:51.encouraged them, that they didn't need the encouragement, they are

:59:52. > :59:59.keen to doing it and I look for to the fruits of that in the coming

:00:00. > :00:04.weeks. I welcome the recognition that role broadband is particularly

:00:05. > :00:08.important for increased growth. Will he make a commitment that no small

:00:09. > :00:16.rural business will be left behind when it comes to digital

:00:17. > :00:21.connectivity? An excellent point. If we want to help everywhere achieve

:00:22. > :00:25.its potential, then we know the prosperity of many rural areas is

:00:26. > :00:28.held back if they do not have good digital connectivity, so that is an

:00:29. > :00:36.ambition we set out in his green paper. Given a vital nature of steel

:00:37. > :00:41.as a foundation industry, it is pretty astonishing that Steele gets

:00:42. > :00:47.only one passing mention on page 100 or so of this report. Could I

:00:48. > :00:55.commend this report to the Secretary of State, steel 2020, and could I

:00:56. > :00:59.ask him to read it and come to a future meeting of the all party

:01:00. > :01:04.Parliamentary group to explain why steel has not been given a deal in

:01:05. > :01:10.the report and seems to be airbrushed out of the so far. He

:01:11. > :01:14.speaks nonsense, because I had cordial and successful meetings with

:01:15. > :01:18.the steel industry and are excited about the prospects of working

:01:19. > :01:23.strategically for their future. I've had the pleasure of attending in the

:01:24. > :01:28.past and look forward to doing so again. Last week, the Chancellor

:01:29. > :01:36.described the roll-out of new vehicles as disappointing. Will this

:01:37. > :01:40.Green paper lay a reliable road map to enable us to hit that target as

:01:41. > :01:47.it is also a key part in improving air quality? He's right that the

:01:48. > :01:52.opportunities in the roll-out of electric vehicles are significant,

:01:53. > :02:00.not just in the transport severe, but in terms of our energy systems.

:02:01. > :02:04.An electric vehicle is amongst other things, a unit for storing

:02:05. > :02:07.electricity. So combining a making the connections between these

:02:08. > :02:15.sectors is good for consumers, it is good for industry and for the

:02:16. > :02:17.resilience of the country. As the Secretary of State knows, automotive

:02:18. > :02:22.industries are a major contributor to the greatness of the industrial

:02:23. > :02:29.heartland that we have in the North East. Yet, the indication of a hard

:02:30. > :02:35.Brexit by the Prime Minister has left many businesses across the

:02:36. > :02:40.country and the North is nervous, including Nissan in my constituency.

:02:41. > :02:45.Will he ensure this consultation fully addresses these concerns and

:02:46. > :02:48.supports a success and hopefully future expansion with regard to

:02:49. > :02:56.electric vehicles and batteries of this vital industry? Well, the

:02:57. > :03:00.honourable lady is correct to emphasise the importance of being at

:03:01. > :03:06.the cottage edge of research and development in the automotive

:03:07. > :03:11.sector. -- the cutting edge. This is why it many car companies find

:03:12. > :03:15.Britain an attractive place to base themselves. When it comes to Brexit,

:03:16. > :03:20.we are clear and the Prime Minister has been clear that we want to have

:03:21. > :03:25.a free trading relationship with our friends and neighbours in Europe and

:03:26. > :03:31.that is the way we will approach the negotiations. As you are well aware,

:03:32. > :03:37.the North West of England is very much the hub of the nuclear sector

:03:38. > :03:40.of the UK. Can he shed light as to what thinking he's given to ensuring

:03:41. > :03:45.the people in the North West are the prime beneficiaries of the supply

:03:46. > :03:52.chain emerging at the nuclear sector? There are huge

:03:53. > :03:56.opportunities, through the development of new nuclear which

:03:57. > :04:00.will allow for the training of a new generation of engineers and

:04:01. > :04:04.technicians. There are also opportunities, not just here, but

:04:05. > :04:10.around the world, in using our expertise in decommissioning, to

:04:11. > :04:13.earn income for the UK and creates jobs. There are big opportunities in

:04:14. > :04:22.the sector, both in skills and in terms of industries expanding. The

:04:23. > :04:26.Prime Minister's strategy backs concrete proposals for Wales. And

:04:27. > :04:29.considering our surplus with the EU, Wales is set to suffer most as a

:04:30. > :04:35.result in the pursuit of a brutal Brexit. Does he accept that do

:04:36. > :04:39.nothing to counter the loss of EU funding will serve only to

:04:40. > :04:41.exacerbate the already significant geographical wealth and earnings

:04:42. > :04:47.inequalities which characterise the British states? I asked the

:04:48. > :04:51.honourable ladies read the Green paper as you will see a crystal

:04:52. > :04:55.clear commitment to making sure all parts of the United Kingdom are able

:04:56. > :04:57.to share in the prosperity, that is good for both those places on the

:04:58. > :05:10.UK. May I welcome the reference in the

:05:11. > :05:17.Green paper in recognition in the vital role of creative industries?

:05:18. > :05:24.It is one sector... Can he reassure me that it extends to the TV and

:05:25. > :05:29.film industry? The Crown, the recent hit series, which will still be my

:05:30. > :05:32.constituency, is a wonderful example of jobs, investment and expert that

:05:33. > :05:37.can be generated by that sector. Does he agree that requires not only

:05:38. > :05:43.the correct skills, be particularly in the south-east, the requisites

:05:44. > :05:46.why commercial space? I do agree with my honourable friend and the

:05:47. > :05:52.creative industries together have some claim to be Britain's most

:05:53. > :05:57.successful sector in recent years. They've been growing strongly. Sir

:05:58. > :06:02.Peter Basil get has agreed to work with the industries to work with

:06:03. > :06:05.building on that success in the future to continue to create the

:06:06. > :06:18.greatest jobs they've been doing and all afford to it. I warmly welcome

:06:19. > :06:23.the new Green paper. Though the last six years without a strategy has

:06:24. > :06:31.been wasted. Having said that, in relation to the bit for metals and

:06:32. > :06:35.there's no mention of the sea CS, these issues are critical to energy

:06:36. > :06:45.intensive industries going forward. But of real concern is regarding

:06:46. > :06:48.virgin steel-making capacity and certain ministers in relation to

:06:49. > :06:54.importing steel, rather than primarily relying on British made

:06:55. > :06:59.steel, whether in Scunthorpe or Port Talbot. Will the Minister please

:07:00. > :07:03.rule that out? I do recognise the issue you mention is, but if he

:07:04. > :07:06.speaks to me later, I will find out more about it. I'm grateful for his

:07:07. > :07:14.welcome for the approach we are taking. I'd argue strongly it builds

:07:15. > :07:19.on the some of the successes we've enjoyed in recent years, not least

:07:20. > :07:24.devolving powers and funds to local areas, looking to create

:07:25. > :07:30.institutions that can conduct research and development that now

:07:31. > :07:33.has a worldwide reputation. But we can't be complacent and must

:07:34. > :07:41.continue that are built in the future. I congratulate my right

:07:42. > :07:45.honourable friend on his industrial strategy Wix works hand in glove

:07:46. > :07:48.with the Government's Brexit plans to strengthen business confidence.

:07:49. > :07:57.The strategy underpins about commitment to life sciences and will

:07:58. > :08:04.my friend accepts invitations come to AstraZeneca's site and find out

:08:05. > :08:11.more about their growth plans? I will indeed. And speaking of life

:08:12. > :08:15.sciences in the North West is does that one of the themes of the paper,

:08:16. > :08:20.the interaction between sectors and places and how we can build

:08:21. > :08:27.institutions that can encourage a small business to be able to benefit

:08:28. > :08:31.from the presence of a range of other businesses in that sector. We

:08:32. > :08:40.have further work to do and my honourable friend will be an expert

:08:41. > :08:47.advisor. The Green paper should set other Government's ambitions, and an

:08:48. > :08:51.industrial strategy should have a central focus on jobs. I asked the

:08:52. > :08:53.Secretary of State on the 13th of December by the disability

:08:54. > :08:58.employment gap in our industrial strategy could support the

:08:59. > :09:02.Government's ambitions inhabit that gap -- halving that gap. Can he

:09:03. > :09:08.explain therefore why disability and the disabled and not feature in

:09:09. > :09:13.paper? It does make mention of the fight we will be setting out further

:09:14. > :09:18.measures on employment policies in particular and I've agreed with him

:09:19. > :09:22.in the past that just as in relation to the question from his honourable

:09:23. > :09:28.friend, when you have people whose contribution is not being adequately

:09:29. > :09:33.made use of, that is a loss not just for the individuals in question, but

:09:34. > :09:38.the whole of the UK and the economy. This is a welcome and ambitious

:09:39. > :09:41.green paper. Inswinger, we have embraced developments, but we need

:09:42. > :09:46.to be able to reach out for potential and to do that, we must

:09:47. > :09:54.unlock additional land and infrastructure funding. How can this

:09:55. > :09:58.process be sped up? I'm keen we should be fleet of foot in that,

:09:59. > :10:02.because it's important for business is expanding all being founded

:10:03. > :10:09.located for the first time that they should have the land available. The

:10:10. > :10:15.Communities Secretary have this in mind in his reforms to the planning

:10:16. > :10:23.system. Factoring and exports are benefiting greatly from... The much

:10:24. > :10:27.more needs to be done to build the country's industrial strength. Will

:10:28. > :10:32.he give serious consideration to re-establish in the national

:10:33. > :10:36.economic development Council on how British industry may be doing in the

:10:37. > :10:48.future? I am interested then the honourable

:10:49. > :10:53.gentleman 's proposal. I had not thought of reviving a body which is

:10:54. > :11:04.associated with a different type of industrial strategy, when it was the

:11:05. > :11:08.big empires sitting down. I think the approach we want to take is to

:11:09. > :11:14.create the conditions in which it is the resurgence of the new

:11:15. > :11:23.businesses. I am not sure that would be the rate approach. Small and

:11:24. > :11:35.medium-sized enterprises are the bedrock of local economic life. How

:11:36. > :11:39.can the secretary of state demonstrate my constituents in

:11:40. > :11:46.catering that the industrial strategy is relevant to them? My

:11:47. > :11:57.experience of businesses just like that is that what helps the ability

:11:58. > :12:03.to fulfil growing order books is often held up by the lack of skilled

:12:04. > :12:08.staff they can employ. We are wanting to improve standards in

:12:09. > :12:12.technical education to assist employers and I think it will make a

:12:13. > :12:19.big difference to those small and medium-size businesses who maybe

:12:20. > :12:25.cannot finance the larger training institutes themselves. Can I ask the

:12:26. > :12:34.Minister how he looks at this commitment to innovation with the

:12:35. > :12:40.wholesale pillaging of the claim of British energy companies through

:12:41. > :12:53.foreign takeovers. Not least the takeover of MasterCard and the

:12:54. > :12:59.perspective seal. I regard that I regard it as a matter of pride that

:13:00. > :13:05.this country is welcome to overseas investment and we have benefited

:13:06. > :13:11.hugely from that. When I was with my honourable friend in the West

:13:12. > :13:18.Midlands invaded, we met with the chief executive of Jaguar, which is

:13:19. > :13:26.known by an Indian company. I would want to be open to overseas

:13:27. > :13:37.investment. I warmly welcome the raider of that reply. Would he

:13:38. > :13:43.consider the future of the ear partnerships, with the long term

:13:44. > :13:47.relationship between the Ministry of Defence and Connecticut, would he

:13:48. > :13:54.look to grow other areas of expertise? It has been a success. We

:13:55. > :14:05.are making a commitment not only to that, but learnt lessons from other

:14:06. > :14:11.sectors that sectors like that go on to create similar institutions. I

:14:12. > :14:17.welcome the Green paper on that basis. But as they are the

:14:18. > :14:26.investment and the money they have traditionally supported? I went to

:14:27. > :14:34.old college to meet the principal and they said the lack of funding

:14:35. > :14:40.was really handicapping the efforts to help improve the skills level. We

:14:41. > :14:43.are looking to find as much common ground as possible. We are wanting

:14:44. > :14:51.to work with the colleges and employers to make sure the forms

:14:52. > :14:57.that only did for his constituents as well as others. So that they will

:14:58. > :15:07.be able to get these jobs in the future. Having a life sciences at

:15:08. > :15:09.the front of the schedule and the strategy, the biggest customer is

:15:10. > :15:19.the National Health Service. Could he confirm that the procurement, the

:15:20. > :15:23.inflexible and unimaginative process by the National Health Service will

:15:24. > :15:38.be under review, not least in relation to drug purchases? There is

:15:39. > :15:41.evidence that the green paper is a joined up in this and the Health

:15:42. > :15:48.Secretary is an enthusiastic participant in this. I am sure he

:15:49. > :15:56.will be pleased to hear about the expertise my honourable friend

:15:57. > :16:04.brings to the subject. When we had about the industrial growth, we

:16:05. > :16:11.welcome that. But having seen the ten action points outline, can he

:16:12. > :16:26.confirm that the sidelines with industrial strategy and will he be

:16:27. > :16:33.looking to tie up the deal with the colleges so we can sustain that. I

:16:34. > :16:40.think it showed very good ambition. I wish them every success in that.

:16:41. > :16:47.Deals will have to be negotiated, but he knows that Scotland has a

:16:48. > :16:56.very good record in that regard. I welcome the statement. We enjoy an

:16:57. > :17:03.excellent ecosystem for life sciences. Would he agree with me

:17:04. > :17:06.that the strategy practically provides the opportunity for

:17:07. > :17:11.businesses to bring their ideas to the door to drive direct action for

:17:12. > :17:23.the sector in particular, but all sectors and could I invite him to

:17:24. > :17:26.come and see Ipswich, with its enterprise zones. It would make an

:17:27. > :17:35.excellent site for a college of technology. It would be very nice to

:17:36. > :17:42.be there. Can I see the point she makes are absolutely resonating with

:17:43. > :17:47.the themes of the Green paper. We want to make sure we have the great

:17:48. > :17:54.institutions, the rate schools, the late support for businesses. It is

:17:55. > :18:02.very much business lead. We're not directing business, telling them how

:18:03. > :18:08.things should be. Employers and consumers will respond to the

:18:09. > :18:11.strategy. We want to hear what they want from it rather than the

:18:12. > :18:18.government telling them what how it is going to be. The Secretary of

:18:19. > :18:27.State talked about migration policy with regard to employment. Will he

:18:28. > :18:33.take over responsibility for certain parts of migration policy. Better,

:18:34. > :18:42.given has importance on evolution, will he look devolving immigration

:18:43. > :18:48.policy to the nations? My responsibilities are broad enough

:18:49. > :18:54.and keeping me very busy. It gives me the opportunity to emphasise that

:18:55. > :19:01.this is an approach by the whole of the government. It is important that

:19:02. > :19:07.the greatest and the best are able to continue to be employed to make a

:19:08. > :19:16.contribution that they are to the United Kingdom economy. Thank you.

:19:17. > :19:23.There's much to be welcomed this strategy and they would particular

:19:24. > :19:28.express my support for science development time developing skills.

:19:29. > :19:33.Could he sees a moment and make the case for the government to increase

:19:34. > :19:43.spending on science and technology to 3% of gross domestic product?

:19:44. > :19:49.Could I also ask to ask skin to look at the Digital strategy as a matter

:19:50. > :19:54.of urgency? I am grateful to the honourable member for pushing us in

:19:55. > :19:59.that direction. He will see that we are very clear-sighted about this.

:20:00. > :20:07.We are very keen to invest in science and research. We want to

:20:08. > :20:15.create conditions that the private sector, as well as government,

:20:16. > :20:28.invests. It is very much part of a programme of which this industrial

:20:29. > :20:36.strategy is leading. Thank you. I welcome the fact that this Green

:20:37. > :20:39.paper was brought forward. Much of this is looking at jobs in the

:20:40. > :20:56.future. But what about the healer know? -- here and no. For instance,

:20:57. > :21:09.the problems in my own constituency with Babcock? I am very aware of the

:21:10. > :21:14.situation is at Babcock and it is always bad news when we hear of

:21:15. > :21:30.people losing their jobs. We have had a good record of finding new

:21:31. > :21:38.employment and begin to park does reflect that businesses will close

:21:39. > :21:40.from time to time. But it is all part of a strategy that we would

:21:41. > :21:52.make sure that people will be able to hopefully get jobs in the future.

:21:53. > :21:56.Kathy gives technical education greater parity of esteem in

:21:57. > :22:03.universities to make young people find easier to get vacancies? I am

:22:04. > :22:17.grateful for his words and his contribution. It prominently

:22:18. > :22:25.features what he asks and I hope he will promote it in the years ahead.

:22:26. > :22:32.The science, engineering and manufacturing technology has helped

:22:33. > :22:36.create a shortfall of 50,000 engineers. How does the Secretary of

:22:37. > :22:52.State plan to close that gap? And can I ask him to ask him to check

:22:53. > :22:57.that all these steel and will HS2 be will be manufactured in the United

:22:58. > :23:04.Kingdom? There is a big focus on technical education, going rate

:23:05. > :23:07.street to identifying the challenge that the rate honourable gentleman

:23:08. > :23:13.puts forward. We want to make sure all these skills are available. With

:23:14. > :23:21.regard to procurements, he will know that is a change in the guidelines

:23:22. > :23:41.to enable contributions to be viewed only fear basis. That is part of the

:23:42. > :23:46.process. -- fair. I am reassured to hear the Secretary of State saying

:23:47. > :23:59.this industrial strategy will be a much broader and wide-ranging 1-run

:24:00. > :24:05.the one after World War II. When we look at what managed to lift but a

:24:06. > :24:11.note of economic gloom in the 1980s, tax simplification was at the centre

:24:12. > :24:18.of that. The third challenge we need to address this to keep the United

:24:19. > :24:24.Kingdom is one of the best places in the world to either start or

:24:25. > :24:29.continue our business. Both the policies he mentions are crucial to

:24:30. > :24:37.that. Part of our success in treating business success in recent

:24:38. > :24:44.years because we have had that very much in mind on the side of the

:24:45. > :24:47.house. The I congratulate the Secretary of State and the

:24:48. > :24:54.recognition of the energy system and the crucial storage and management

:24:55. > :25:02.policies will improve productivity. Would he agree that the United

:25:03. > :25:08.Kingdom should be the world leader in the sector and with the south

:25:09. > :25:16.west not be the ideal place for the base of that? He has commendably

:25:17. > :25:26.vigorous and has promotion of the south west. So will other parts of

:25:27. > :25:39.the country. The Northwest with the strong nuclear sector and the

:25:40. > :25:42.south-east with its equal energy directives. All parts of the United

:25:43. > :25:49.Kingdom can benefit from this strategy.

:25:50. > :25:59.Kent has strength in the life sciences, but the conspicuous gap in

:26:00. > :26:02.medical schools. An institution for which life size innovations

:26:03. > :26:06.frequently emerge. I'm hopeful this strategy may be a vehicle to seek

:26:07. > :26:12.support for medical schools and how grateful I would be to him for any

:26:13. > :26:16.encouragement he can offer. I'm grateful to my honourable friend for

:26:17. > :26:21.her words. She will know that in life sciences, one of the proposals

:26:22. > :26:27.we make is we review what the sector needs to be able to support the

:26:28. > :26:33.small and medium-size businesses there and that proposal may be

:26:34. > :26:38.something they should take up. Mel congratulate my honourable friend on

:26:39. > :26:42.the statement and green paper. As he develops the strategy, will is a or

:26:43. > :26:45.Britain's leadership in the fourth industrial revolution and the new

:26:46. > :26:48.jobs and companies driving forward our growth and encourage them to

:26:49. > :26:54.come to the green paper consultation? I'm grateful to my

:26:55. > :26:58.honourable friend for all the work he has done in assuring this country

:26:59. > :27:06.does not see it to others the energy and initiative in taking advantage

:27:07. > :27:08.of what is called the fourth industrial revolution, and the

:27:09. > :27:11.pamphlet he recently wrote is full of good ideas and I hope he will

:27:12. > :27:22.respond with his colleagues who wrote that to the consultation. I

:27:23. > :27:27.not only commend the Secretary of State for his statement today, but

:27:28. > :27:29.also commend to him the all party Parliamentary group published today

:27:30. > :27:35.and hope it will be useful as part of his ongoing discussions within

:27:36. > :27:39.Government. One area the Government has strode forward in is the public

:27:40. > :27:43.sector procurement. Can he ensure that as part of this we transfer

:27:44. > :27:50.some of those principles into the private sector procurement, too? I

:27:51. > :27:58.will bear that in mind and read it very closely the report that he

:27:59. > :28:03.mentions. Any industrial strategy or digital strategy must rely on

:28:04. > :28:06.transformative investment in broadband infrastructure. Can the

:28:07. > :28:09.Secretary of State reassure the House that this will not only

:28:10. > :28:16.address the problems of the last decade, but also the next 20 years

:28:17. > :28:21.and 30 years, so we can plan for an Internet of things and the fourth

:28:22. > :28:25.industrial revolution? He makes an excellent point and of course a

:28:26. > :28:29.strategy must be forward-looking and create conditions in which investors

:28:30. > :28:33.and firms can make commitments now that will lead to our prosperity in

:28:34. > :28:40.the future. His frame of reference is correct. I warmly welcome the

:28:41. > :28:45.green paper on the modern industrial strategy. However, will my right

:28:46. > :28:49.honourable friend reassure my constituents in Long Eaton that

:28:50. > :28:52.traditional industries such as lacemaking that contribute so much

:28:53. > :28:59.to our economy do not be left behind? I'm interested to hear the

:29:00. > :29:05.observation. It is a consultation and it is important that we

:29:06. > :29:09.participate in the new industries and that through our research and

:29:10. > :29:17.development and scientific expertise we take our place there. Of course,

:29:18. > :29:20.many industries we have make an important contribution to our

:29:21. > :29:25.economy and a boiler and we want them to prosper as well. I woke on

:29:26. > :29:31.these proposals and a note that in all ten of the areas of focus, the

:29:32. > :29:35.Yeovil area and its aerospace cluster present our study are

:29:36. > :29:39.crucial opportunities to optimise our potential. We leave it in my

:29:40. > :29:44.constituency and help me promote a local centre of excellence and

:29:45. > :29:48.technology to build local skills and actively encourage inward investment

:29:49. > :29:52.from the likes of Boeing so that in partnership with great local

:29:53. > :29:55.companies like Leonardo, we can deliver the skills and jobs of the

:29:56. > :30:03.future and maintain our strategic abilities in helicopters? In my tour

:30:04. > :30:06.of the country from Orkney to Somerset, it seems I will be

:30:07. > :30:12.delighted like other aerospace cluster that is there. Companies

:30:13. > :30:18.reinforce each other by their presence there and that we know

:30:19. > :30:21.across the world is a source of resilience for local economies, when

:30:22. > :30:30.you have several companies all in the same sector. I know you've been

:30:31. > :30:37.saving the best for last. There have been many references to mobile

:30:38. > :30:41.technologies and electric vehicles as growth areas for the future and

:30:42. > :30:43.both rely on batteries. Will the Secretary of State join me in

:30:44. > :30:48.welcoming the news that large deposits of lithium have been fouled

:30:49. > :30:53.in Cornwall? This presents a great opportunity to build on our mining

:30:54. > :30:58.heritage in Cornwall and develop new industries around the extraction of

:30:59. > :31:04.lithium. Will he also confirmed this industrial strategy is designed just

:31:05. > :31:08.to support industries like that? I hadn't picked up that news and am

:31:09. > :31:13.interested to hear it from my honourable friend. It is certainly

:31:14. > :31:16.true that the technological developments in energy storage,

:31:17. > :31:20.including batteries, are a big opportunity. And if Cornwall as an

:31:21. > :31:31.opportunity to contribute some of the raw materials, I'm sure it's

:31:32. > :31:39.excellent news for them. The local Government Bill, second reading. We

:31:40. > :31:49.now call the Minister to move the second reading. Minister. Thank you.

:31:50. > :31:56.I beg to move that the bill now be read a second time. This Government

:31:57. > :32:01.has made no secret of its ambition to build a growing international

:32:02. > :32:06.economy that works for everyone. But in global Britain, we need local

:32:07. > :32:11.foundations. It is not enough to have a world leading FTSE 100

:32:12. > :32:14.exporters, with the thriving high streets, strong independent

:32:15. > :32:19.retailers, local economies that match the exceptional growth UK plc

:32:20. > :32:27.has experienced in the last seven years. The best place to lead that

:32:28. > :32:31.drive for growth or local councils. They know their communities better

:32:32. > :32:36.than anyone, what strengths to build on and what challenges to address.

:32:37. > :32:42.They hold many of the levers required to deliver change. Yet, in

:32:43. > :32:46.many meetings with councillors and council leaders, I'm often told all

:32:47. > :32:52.local authorities like a meaningful incentives to grow at their local

:32:53. > :32:55.economies. They tell me the system is overcentralised, that residents

:32:56. > :33:01.see no connection between the level of local taxation and of services

:33:02. > :33:07.they receive, that the proceeds of local growth disappear into national

:33:08. > :33:12.coffers, forcing councils to go cap in hand asking for funding from

:33:13. > :33:16.Whitehall. Mr Deputy Speaker, that is not good enough. Local

:33:17. > :33:21.authorities and businesses as well as local communities deserve a

:33:22. > :33:25.better deal. And this bill will provide that. It delivers

:33:26. > :33:32.far-sighted and long overdue changes about radically reform the way we

:33:33. > :33:37.fund local Government. It ends the main Central Government grants

:33:38. > :33:40.altogether and instead, allows local authorities to retain a locally

:33:41. > :33:49.raised taxes. It encourages local growth and it supports local

:33:50. > :33:52.businesses. Does it without accounts are like mine actively promotes

:33:53. > :33:57.growth and incurs huge bills for new roads, schools, surgeries and other

:33:58. > :34:01.public facilities and that has not been adequately reflected in the

:34:02. > :34:04.amount of money were allowed to retain from taxes were raised

:34:05. > :34:10.locally or in the support we get from Central Government? I would say

:34:11. > :34:15.to my right honourable friend that I absolutely understand local

:34:16. > :34:22.Government for far too long cause complained that the incentive to

:34:23. > :34:27.create growth is not there, particularly because of things like

:34:28. > :34:33.the levy, which was implemented in regard to the 50% business rates

:34:34. > :34:40.retention scheme and that levy, as my right honourable friend will know

:34:41. > :34:47.is being scrapped in this bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not a bill

:34:48. > :34:52.that increases spending and puts a greater strain on local taxpayers.

:34:53. > :34:56.Rather, it offers a focused package of reform that will encourage and

:34:57. > :35:03.support local growth whilst continuing to live within our means.

:35:04. > :35:09.I will start with a commitment made in October 2015, that by the end of

:35:10. > :35:15.this Parliament, local Government would retain 100% of locally raised

:35:16. > :35:18.taxes. In implementing these reforms, we will move local

:35:19. > :35:24.authorities away for dependency on a Central Government grant and on

:35:25. > :35:30.towards greater self-sufficiency. I would like to take this opportunity

:35:31. > :35:34.to record my gratitude for the substantial contributions made by

:35:35. > :35:42.many in local Government and in businesses to the development of

:35:43. > :35:46.these reforms. The bill is a major milestone in the process and

:35:47. > :35:52.establishes the legislative framework for the reformed system.

:35:53. > :35:58.The bill reflects the significant input we have had to date and our

:35:59. > :36:02.collaborative will continue as we are determined to detail of the

:36:03. > :36:10.implementation of the new system. A key part of that will be the

:36:11. > :36:14.strengthening incentives for local authorities to grow their business

:36:15. > :36:20.rates in coming. This will build on the current system of 50% business

:36:21. > :36:28.rate retention. Under these reforms, which are aiming to be implemented

:36:29. > :36:36.in 2019, 2020, local Government will retain around an additional ?12.5

:36:37. > :36:39.billion in revenue. To ensure the reforms are fiscally neutral, local

:36:40. > :36:45.authorities will have grants replaced with locally raised taxes

:36:46. > :36:49.for existing responsibilities, or be given new responsibilities. These

:36:50. > :36:55.matters will be subject to separate discussions and not dealt with in

:36:56. > :36:58.this legislation. However, the Secretary of State announced last

:36:59. > :37:04.week that devolution of attendance allowance funding is no longer being

:37:05. > :37:12.considered as part of the business rate reforms. And I'm happy to

:37:13. > :37:17.confirm that to the House today. To the Minister... In the consultation

:37:18. > :37:20.paper the Government published last year, as well as suggesting

:37:21. > :37:24.attendance allowance may be passed down to local Government, and I

:37:25. > :37:29.welcome the fact it is not, they also suggested the ?3 billion

:37:30. > :37:32.public-health grant and the better care fund so crucial to local

:37:33. > :37:38.authorities facing gay social care funding crisis, will be axed as part

:37:39. > :37:47.as a fiscal quid pro quo business rate devolution. Is that still the

:37:48. > :37:53.minister's intention? I would say that as the honourable gentleman

:37:54. > :38:01.will know, the bill before us today does not deal with the principle of

:38:02. > :38:07.what additional matters will be devolved to local Government or not.

:38:08. > :38:11.What I would say to him though is that with regard to social care

:38:12. > :38:15.funding, which is an extremely important issue, it is this

:38:16. > :38:19.Government whose given the opportunity for local Government to

:38:20. > :38:25.spend up to an additional ?900 million in the next two on social

:38:26. > :38:32.care, in addition to the additional package of ?3.5 million that we've

:38:33. > :38:37.given the councils access to and in total, we've given access to an

:38:38. > :38:41.additional ?7.6 billion across this spending review period that is

:38:42. > :38:47.dedicated absolutely and solely to adult social care. I am extremely

:38:48. > :38:52.grateful to the Minister. Woody accents that one of the consequences

:38:53. > :38:57.of the bill is that we will significantly see rates demand on

:38:58. > :39:01.hospitals at a time when the health service is so hard pressed, for

:39:02. > :39:07.example, the Queen Elizabeth in Birmingham will see is rates demand

:39:08. > :39:12.rise to ?7 million. If he's willing to look at discretion of the relief

:39:13. > :39:21.on public toilets, will he look again at discretionary relief for

:39:22. > :39:24.hospitals? I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I'm sure

:39:25. > :39:32.having perused the bill, he will know that within this bill, NHS

:39:33. > :39:37.hospitals do not feature in regard to the increase that he mentions. I

:39:38. > :39:43.am sure he will know that what I think is referring to is the 2017

:39:44. > :39:54.business rate revaluation, which is an exercise that has been undertaken

:39:55. > :39:58.by the valuation office agency, being independent of Government. In

:39:59. > :40:04.that sense, this Government has put a package of transitional relief in

:40:05. > :40:11.place, which is up to 3.6 billion pounds. NHS hospitals will be

:40:12. > :40:20.subject to the same transitional relief as well over rate payers who

:40:21. > :40:27.will see an increase in their business rates bill as a result of

:40:28. > :40:30.the re-evaluation. But I'd like to point out that the business rate

:40:31. > :40:36.revaluation is not as many members in this House will know a process

:40:37. > :40:46.designed to raise ball is business rate overall, it a fiscally mutual

:40:47. > :40:48.exercise and therefore within the business rate revaluation, there

:40:49. > :40:52.will be people whose business rates bill will have increased and

:40:53. > :41:09.organisations whose business rates bills have decreased.

:41:10. > :41:18.The bill does not determine individual levels for individual

:41:19. > :41:25.councils. We will continue to: people across government to deal of

:41:26. > :41:33.the fear funding review. We remain committed to deliver a new funding

:41:34. > :41:45.formula in time for implementation in 2019-2020. Does he agree that

:41:46. > :41:52.while the devaluation of business rates is very welcome, the gap

:41:53. > :41:57.between urban and rural businesses and the review must make sure the

:41:58. > :42:04.gap closes as soon as possible and does not further weighed in. I think

:42:05. > :42:09.you for that intervention. That is indeed my view in the local

:42:10. > :42:18.government settlement deal last year. That was the insertion of a

:42:19. > :42:25.rule taking into account absolutely what my honourable friend says. That

:42:26. > :42:31.said, it is not, as he knows, part of this bill, but we are putting

:42:32. > :42:35.that under review. It is apparent that there are many places in the

:42:36. > :42:43.country where local authorities have come forward and expressed concern

:42:44. > :42:48.that the last proper assessment was around ten years ago and in many

:42:49. > :42:51.places, the demographic has completely changed in the

:42:52. > :43:01.intervening period. We are looking closely at the review at the

:43:02. > :43:14.situation regarding how resources should be distributed across the

:43:15. > :43:25.system. I will give way. We have shared many a happy hour debating

:43:26. > :43:32.business rates reduction. Most businesses have welcomed the

:43:33. > :43:39.settlement. Some are worried about other adjustments which have been

:43:40. > :43:43.made. What action is my honourable friend taking on adjustments to the

:43:44. > :43:48.overall settlement to take into account changes that the department

:43:49. > :43:57.has made which renders some of the settlements rather strange, by

:43:58. > :44:03.comparison. My honourable friend and I have spent many a happy time on

:44:04. > :44:07.the business reduction Bill which is coming back for its fourth stage

:44:08. > :44:16.this coming Friday. In terms of the issue that my honourable friend

:44:17. > :44:21.brings, my honourable friend is extremely clever in these matters

:44:22. > :44:24.and a member of the select committee and the issue he is referring to is

:44:25. > :44:31.not part of today's bill. He will know it is part of the local

:44:32. > :44:36.government finance settlement under which we have very recently

:44:37. > :44:41.undertaken a consultation. And on which we will be responding to the

:44:42. > :44:48.consultation and appoints meet by honourable members in rating and

:44:49. > :44:54.from local authorities across the country in regard to the new homes

:44:55. > :45:10.bonus which he has been able to get America this evening. On the record.

:45:11. > :45:18.So far as the 50% local additional business rates which I raised is

:45:19. > :45:23.finding urban areas because they are more prone field sites the to

:45:24. > :45:31.encourage business setups. It will be far harder in the country for us

:45:32. > :45:44.to raise the money. That is a very valid point. Indeed, like in the

:45:45. > :45:46.current system, there will be a redistribution of one of the four

:45:47. > :45:54.principles within the system because we must, in setting up the system,

:45:55. > :45:59.make sure there are not alias fundamentally losing out just

:46:00. > :46:05.because they do not start at the same position in terms of the amount

:46:06. > :46:13.of business rates collected as other areas. I have had a number of

:46:14. > :46:19.honourable friends ask a question about rural areas. Many of them are

:46:20. > :46:31.dependent on small businesses. Would they be exempted from business rates

:46:32. > :46:44.completely by the government package on business rates relief? I can

:46:45. > :46:49.assure him that the effect of the 2017 re-evaluation will be mitigated

:46:50. > :46:55.on local authorities on the current system because it will make sure

:46:56. > :47:02.that rural areas do not lose out. It was also the case that prior to this

:47:03. > :47:17.new 100% business rates system getting under way. I will give way.

:47:18. > :47:23.I is the issue of redistribution, is there going to be another needs

:47:24. > :47:31.assessment? Currently, when the new system comes forward, this house is

:47:32. > :47:43.that information before us. I understand in future we will not

:47:44. > :47:50.have the system. The principle of allocation will not come to this

:47:51. > :47:59.house. By have we been circumnavigated in this process? The

:48:00. > :48:04.honourable gentleman is a great deal of knowledge and this is the

:48:05. > :48:08.chairman of the select committee. He also has a great deal of respect

:48:09. > :48:12.from the members in this house on the subject. We are now in a very

:48:13. > :48:21.different world in which we were in only a few years ago we local

:48:22. > :48:30.government collected the whole of the business rates and back to

:48:31. > :48:33.government. 80% of the of local government was money that was

:48:34. > :48:40.distributed from central government on the basis of the principles that

:48:41. > :48:49.he mentioned. No, we are moving to a system and Minix take it we are 100%

:48:50. > :48:53.of the money from that will be raised locally. It is not a

:48:54. > :49:01.situation where year-on-year we will be in a position we are we are

:49:02. > :49:06.redistributing the level funding that has been the case. The other

:49:07. > :49:13.point I would make and it has been well recognised by local authorities

:49:14. > :49:19.in the past year. 90% of the local authorities of seeing up to the

:49:20. > :49:21.four-year deal. The have asked for certainty of funding, which this

:49:22. > :49:41.certainly provides. Under for the point of

:49:42. > :49:50.redistribution mechanisms, given EV label owns that councils will be

:49:51. > :49:56.able to reason through precept. It will raise 700 million over the next

:49:57. > :49:59.three years. Could he give us any encouragement whether the better

:50:00. > :50:04.clear fund will be brought forward to address this serious concerns

:50:05. > :50:17.there are around the problems with social care? I am sure my honourable

:50:18. > :50:21.friend will know, I think she is referring to the new Cuckoo payment

:50:22. > :50:27.which will go directly to local authorities, that has been brought

:50:28. > :50:35.forward as part of the spending review from 2015. In that sense, she

:50:36. > :50:39.will also know that funding effectively by changing the way the

:50:40. > :50:47.new homes bonus operates and sharpening the incentive in relation

:50:48. > :50:57.to the way that system operates. Therefore, that additional money was

:50:58. > :51:03.not freed up quickly enough to do what she says, although this year it

:51:04. > :51:10.was ?105 million in the system. Next year it is ?800 million. The year

:51:11. > :51:18.after it is ?1.5 billion. Alongside that, we will also be an additional

:51:19. > :51:31.?240 million for the social care system is a dedicated, real ice to

:51:32. > :51:39.additional savings made through the new homes bonus. I will give way.

:51:40. > :51:45.There will not be a change every year in the assessment. It will be

:51:46. > :51:52.fixed for the period of the settlement. What is important is

:51:53. > :52:01.that when a new needs assessment is done, there is then an allocation

:52:02. > :52:06.agreed, at that point, at the first allocation statement, it is

:52:07. > :52:10.important that that comes back to this house so we can take a view on

:52:11. > :52:15.it? As I said earlier, the honourable gentleman, and a

:52:16. > :52:20.significant amount of respect and regard to these matters while he

:52:21. > :52:29.does not always realise it, there are members of the government

:52:30. > :52:34.benches who do listen to the suggestions and concerns that he

:52:35. > :52:42.raises. I would reiterate, we are moving to a different world. That is

:52:43. > :52:51.why we have chosen to implement a system that we have laid out in the

:52:52. > :52:58.bill. Given that the emphasis of resources are onto local government,

:52:59. > :53:04.what a central government actually going to save as a result of this?

:53:05. > :53:16.In response to the honourable gentleman. I would say to him, this

:53:17. > :53:19.situation is fiscally neutral. We expect the current expenditure of

:53:20. > :53:27.local government to be realised from the current local taxes that are

:53:28. > :53:34.raised locally. There will be an additional ?12.5 million of spending

:53:35. > :53:38.that will also go to local authorities. As I seek, these are

:53:39. > :53:45.not items of expenditure that are looked at in this goal. It is a

:53:46. > :53:49.separate principle. But we will certainly be looking to devolve

:53:50. > :53:56.additional responsibilities to local government. In discussion with local

:53:57. > :54:04.government and organisations concerned, which we expect to be

:54:05. > :54:11.fiscally neutral. It is not physically -- fiscally neutral.

:54:12. > :54:18.Central government are saving money as a result of shifting the

:54:19. > :54:23.resources onto local government. We have got to reach a point surely we

:54:24. > :54:32.are local government cannot sustain that. Central government must be

:54:33. > :54:43.saving money somewhere. As I said to the honourable gentleman, there is

:54:44. > :54:47.an additional money going to local authorities only fiscally neutral

:54:48. > :54:53.basis. What they would see as the whole principle of which this system

:54:54. > :55:02.is built is that it will give local authorities the incentive to wade in

:55:03. > :55:05.the business base and raise additional funding for providing

:55:06. > :55:17.local services as a result of that. I will give way. I thank the

:55:18. > :55:27.Minister. Would he agree that the biggest savings that they will give

:55:28. > :55:31.an incentive to create jobs and drive jobs for what, which will get

:55:32. > :55:37.people off benefits and that will be the biggest benefit of all? Is is

:55:38. > :55:43.quite often the case, my honourable friend has hit the nail on the head.

:55:44. > :55:49.This is about raising local taxes that can be spent on local services,

:55:50. > :55:57.but it is also about driving growth. The biggest thing we can get, one of

:55:58. > :56:01.the most satisfying things, is to see people being employed that were

:56:02. > :56:10.not previously and employment. It is a bill which will drive that.

:56:11. > :56:22.I thank the Minister. As he looked at a thing used in economics to

:56:23. > :56:27.indicate where on the income tax collections spectrum is the optimum

:56:28. > :56:33.place to collect as much revenue as possible? Because we hear a lot

:56:34. > :56:37.about what with revenue can do for local Government, but there's a

:56:38. > :56:40.limit on what businesses can bear. And in my towns, some of my

:56:41. > :56:46.businesses are struggling with business rates. What help can you

:56:47. > :56:53.give local authorities to try and incentivise things to optimise

:56:54. > :56:59.growth and the collection of these taxes and the results for business?

:57:00. > :57:06.Can I just say that interventions are getting too long. Can we keep

:57:07. > :57:17.them tighter and it would give us more time for people to take part.

:57:18. > :57:27.Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Jones is normally a popular name.

:57:28. > :57:33.Marcus is not normally that popular. But it is good to have another

:57:34. > :57:43.markers in the House. I'm delighted at the pointy razors and I do recall

:57:44. > :57:47.that curve in my days of A-level economics. This bill will set out a

:57:48. > :57:55.framework for local authorities to be able to reduce the multiplier on

:57:56. > :58:00.the business rates, so reduce the tax rate and by implication of his

:58:01. > :58:05.point, that may well lead to business as being attracted to a

:58:06. > :58:17.particular area and additional revenue therefore being raised.

:58:18. > :58:25.Authorities have been very clear that they do want more stability.

:58:26. > :58:27.Something they don't get, as I mentioned to the Select Committee,

:58:28. > :58:34.from the current annual discussions on the local Government funding.

:58:35. > :58:39.Councils have told us they want longer-term arrangements. 97% of

:58:40. > :58:43.English councils have signed up to our multi-year deal. This bill

:58:44. > :58:48.delivers that certainty and amends the current settlement process and

:58:49. > :58:55.related approach to the setting of council tax referendum and symbols.

:58:56. > :58:59.We will conceive to be to local authorities from the impact of

:59:00. > :59:05.reductions and the bill will provide a framework that will help councils

:59:06. > :59:10.manage risk and ensure they have a better protection from the impact of

:59:11. > :59:15.successful appeals so they can focus on delivering services their

:59:16. > :59:23.residents and businesses need. On that point, in terms of local

:59:24. > :59:29.authorities who are protected from changes, I welcome his commitment to

:59:30. > :59:32.a fairer funding formula, but nine of the local authorities were the

:59:33. > :59:40.highest spending power are in London. Nine out of the ten. Yet

:59:41. > :59:44.nine out of the ten lowest council tax authorities are also in London.

:59:45. > :59:48.Does he agree a fairer form that must take into account cost drivers

:59:49. > :59:54.behind need in local areas and not necessarily what has simply gone

:59:55. > :59:59.before? It wants to be about need and cost of delivering those

:00:00. > :00:06.services. I thank him for that point. He is correct in that we need

:00:07. > :00:14.to take a significant look at how funding is provided across the

:00:15. > :00:18.system of local Government as I've pointed out on a recurring basis,

:00:19. > :00:25.that doesn't feature the principles for the fair funding as they does

:00:26. > :00:31.feature this bill. But their importance. And certainly, we are

:00:32. > :00:34.taking the issues that my honourable friend mentions into account in the

:00:35. > :00:43.work that we are doing alongside this Bill. Taking soundings from

:00:44. > :00:51.local governments. Madden back row, the bill also includes cutting rates

:00:52. > :00:56.are small businesses and allowing local amenities to local communities

:00:57. > :00:59.can thrive. We'll take power following the commitments of the

:01:00. > :01:03.Budget last year for the Treasury to set the indexation rates for the

:01:04. > :01:08.business rates multiplier. This will allow us to change from the current

:01:09. > :01:15.rate of RPI to the significantly lower CPI measure. We will change

:01:16. > :01:18.the rural rate relief to ensure small businesses there receive the

:01:19. > :01:24.same level of business rate relief as those in urban areas. This is not

:01:25. > :01:31.only fairer, but will make a real difference to many employers across

:01:32. > :01:35.the country. We'll provide a new relief for five years for new

:01:36. > :01:41.optical fibre, fulfilling an announcement made last year. To make

:01:42. > :01:44.Central Government more responsive to changing circumstances, the bill

:01:45. > :01:53.streamlines the admin process of including premises on the central

:01:54. > :01:57.rating list. We will also introduce charity relief for promises on the

:01:58. > :02:09.central list, drinking them into line with those of local lists. --

:02:10. > :02:12.bringing them into line. Much the amusement of honourable members of

:02:13. > :02:16.the House where up last week, we are providing a new discretionary relief

:02:17. > :02:19.for public toilets and councils will be able to maintain these important

:02:20. > :02:27.facilities without having to spend quite so many pennies, Madam Deputy

:02:28. > :02:31.Speaker. As I said, this Government is committed to providing the right

:02:32. > :02:36.conditions for growth. The key function of this bill is to provide

:02:37. > :02:38.local Government with strengthen incentives for growing the business

:02:39. > :02:48.rates income and encouraging local businesses to set up and grow. Could

:02:49. > :02:55.you clarify something? The words on the face of the bill say on the

:02:56. > :03:02.question of communications infrastructures, say it is wholly or

:03:03. > :03:06.mainly used for facilitating the transmission of communications by

:03:07. > :03:12.any means involving the use of electrical or electromagnetic

:03:13. > :03:18.energy. My reading is that confirms rate relief being for the

:03:19. > :03:21.infrastructure used in telecommunications and for example,

:03:22. > :03:28.virgin media, which has a property in my constituency in Kirby would

:03:29. > :03:35.not be eligible. I hope I'm wrong. Chinaman is to let me know if I am?

:03:36. > :03:46.I think the honourable gentleman may be conflating the central

:03:47. > :03:57.list and the business rates relief, which is basically to incentivise

:03:58. > :04:03.providers to actually lay further networks of fibre-optic cables in

:04:04. > :04:09.the ground so people can benefit from superfast fibre broadband

:04:10. > :04:13.across the country. Madam Deputy Speaker, under the current system,

:04:14. > :04:18.Central Government currently levies local growth. We've listened to

:04:19. > :04:25.councils who have told us that this tax on success is a huge

:04:26. > :04:30.disincentive for local authorities and scraps the Central Government

:04:31. > :04:35.levy for good. This means local authorities will keep the hundred

:04:36. > :04:39.percent of business growth in business rate income between resets

:04:40. > :04:43.periods and a real incentive to grow their local economies and a great

:04:44. > :04:51.way to keep the proceeds of growth in their communities. We will also

:04:52. > :04:54.allow local authorities that set of pooling arrangements to designate

:04:55. > :04:57.specific areas where they want to boost growth. Here, they are the

:04:58. > :05:07.potential to give all growth and not lose it to the periodic reset and

:05:08. > :05:11.distribution process. To unlock growth through his considerable

:05:12. > :05:15.incentives provided, we need councillors with business

:05:16. > :05:20.experience. What more can be done to attract busy business people to be

:05:21. > :05:26.themselves forward? I'm aware that my honourable friend is an

:05:27. > :05:31.entrepreneur himself. He is absolutely right. In the sense of

:05:32. > :05:37.visible and measures brought forward, I think it will attract

:05:38. > :05:42.people into becoming councillors, because like in the past, where it

:05:43. > :05:48.was a situation where local business rate was collected locally... Sent

:05:49. > :05:53.back to Government and distributed across the country, this will give

:05:54. > :05:57.them an incentive to be entrepreneurial and will also

:05:58. > :06:05.attract the people he and many of us want to see you in local Government.

:06:06. > :06:10.Madam Deputy Speaker, going further, the bill will provide real

:06:11. > :06:13.flexibilities to local authorities. Councils can also provide business

:06:14. > :06:19.rate relief for parts of area. As a result, for first time since

:06:20. > :06:25.establishment of the business rate system councils will be able to

:06:26. > :06:29.provide a reduced national business rates multiplier for the authority.

:06:30. > :06:35.This will help them attract business and investment into the area. We're

:06:36. > :06:42.also supporting investment where needed to boost infrastructure

:06:43. > :06:47.investment and also enable mayoral combine authorities and the GLA to

:06:48. > :06:50.raise a small supplement on the business rate in full consultation

:06:51. > :06:51.with businesses to enable them to realise their area's growth

:06:52. > :07:11.ambitions. These will allow property owner bids

:07:12. > :07:16.to be established across the country, whether or not a business

:07:17. > :07:22.rate supplement is in force in that area. This will allow a levy on

:07:23. > :07:27.those with a property interest. Running a business is more than a

:07:28. > :07:31.full-time job. The working day does not end when you put up the closed

:07:32. > :07:37.sign. There are huge demands on anyone running a business and such

:07:38. > :07:44.entrepreneurs deserve the Government to stand firmly behind them and not

:07:45. > :07:46.get in their way. We will take about the business rate system or

:07:47. > :07:53.convenient, ensuring every business can access it billing and provide

:07:54. > :07:56.guidance to make sure bills at the same across the board, if your

:07:57. > :08:01.business as premises in Rochdale, for example, you should not have to

:08:02. > :08:07.wrestle with two difference completely set of paperwork.

:08:08. > :08:11.Finally, a paving measure. That will help us me to come is offering

:08:12. > :08:26.joinder up access to tax bills, including business rates by 2022.

:08:27. > :08:32.The Toulon, local Government has been too dependent on the whims and

:08:33. > :08:36.largess of Whitehall and Westminster. Now at the time to

:08:37. > :08:42.change that and help local leaders focus on growth and reduce the

:08:43. > :08:47.burden on local businesses. This provides the framework to do all

:08:48. > :08:51.that and more and I'll... It will realise a once in a generation

:08:52. > :08:56.reform to revolutionise the way local Government is funded. A

:08:57. > :09:05.delighted to commend this bill to the House. The question is that the

:09:06. > :09:08.bill will now be read again. The people of England should be able to

:09:09. > :09:12.shape their own destiny without having to wait for the say-so of

:09:13. > :09:17.ministers opposite. This bill is one part of a mix of new law funding

:09:18. > :09:21.reviews and it regulation and other when all publicly available will we

:09:22. > :09:24.know whether ministers have merely devolved responsibility for more

:09:25. > :09:28.badly funded local services or if serious opportunities for local

:09:29. > :09:35.initiative are genuinely been created. The party opposite has all

:09:36. > :09:39.too often had an hostile attitude in practice to local people being given

:09:40. > :09:43.the power to govern themselves properly. We on these benches are

:09:44. > :09:47.well remember the attacks of the late Margaret Thatcher on local

:09:48. > :09:53.councils. The introduction of the poll tax, abolition of London local

:09:54. > :09:57.Government and the nationalisation of business rates. Notwithstanding,

:09:58. > :10:01.recent deals on extended local powers in some areas, services run

:10:02. > :10:03.by local councils have been one of the hardest hit areas of Government

:10:04. > :10:14.funding in every Budget since 2010. Whilst we are reminiscing, does you

:10:15. > :10:18.remember the local Government the Labour Government cut in rural

:10:19. > :10:21.councils during their time in office, causing many of the problems

:10:22. > :10:33.we now face in that imbalance of funding? No, I don't.

:10:34. > :10:40.I do not remember that. They were able to invest in local services.

:10:41. > :10:48.Far from what we are seeing at the moment. Devolving power to local

:10:49. > :10:55.area so fatal services can be improved. These ambitions we would

:10:56. > :11:02.support. But the detailed implementation that this paves the

:11:03. > :11:08.way for could make the difficult funding problem facing local

:11:09. > :11:16.government even worse. It could alleviate and add to the social care

:11:17. > :11:23.problems. Badly introduced and regional inequality could encase the

:11:24. > :11:30.divisions between those with a growth business industry and those

:11:31. > :11:34.more opposed to that. This has to be accompanied by every distribution

:11:35. > :11:41.formula which addresses those councils who already have a large

:11:42. > :11:45.business rates income and those who do not. It is important that other

:11:46. > :11:54.areas of England do not get left behind. This could work on some of

:11:55. > :12:04.those label -- labour council areas. It could work in river does not seem

:12:05. > :12:06.to be such industrial growth. If the rate honourable gentleman is

:12:07. > :12:13.successful in getting onto the committee, we can shear more debates

:12:14. > :12:20.about such questions. This bill does not answer the very questions which

:12:21. > :12:26.local council and about how business rates retention would work in

:12:27. > :12:31.practice. There is no mention of what additional responsibilities

:12:32. > :12:35.they would be allocated with this redistribution. Few people will of

:12:36. > :12:40.confidence that the government will be capable of addressing these

:12:41. > :12:44.concerns. Over the last seven years, and axe has been taken to local

:12:45. > :12:55.government by this government and the previous one. It is costing more

:12:56. > :13:00.for worse public services. Ministers are forcing councils to put council

:13:01. > :13:07.tax poll local services have to be cut. It is an interesting comment

:13:08. > :13:11.that the honourable gentleman makes. Council tax in real terms is named

:13:12. > :13:17.percent lower than it was when this comment came into power in 2010. The

:13:18. > :13:26.council tax not double while Labour were in government? The figures we

:13:27. > :13:32.have is that there will be a 25% increase in council tax over the

:13:33. > :13:38.course of this Parliament. This is a result of the decisions which have

:13:39. > :13:46.been taken by the government. I would say to the honourable

:13:47. > :13:50.gentleman that even with the adult social care precept which many

:13:51. > :13:56.councils have welcomed, council tax in real terms will still be lower in

:13:57. > :14:07.2020 and it was when his party were in charge in 2010. I do not know who

:14:08. > :14:13.came up with the fight. I says suggest he looks at the record of

:14:14. > :14:17.spending under has department on local council services. ?10 billion

:14:18. > :14:27.voice spent by councils this year than they spent in 2010-11. Councils

:14:28. > :14:32.have faced a 5.8 billion gap by 2020 just to fund statutory services are

:14:33. > :14:35.cut according to the local government Association. Without the

:14:36. > :14:45.necessary funding, it is hardly surprising that we wonder whether

:14:46. > :14:53.the government are really interested in devolution simply on the evading

:14:54. > :14:57.responsibility for cuts. Dorsal shout to libraries, Day centres,

:14:58. > :15:08.swimming pools, museums. Bus services. Abandoned or shot.

:15:09. > :15:16.Investment in parks and street cleaning Ltd. All of these services

:15:17. > :15:23.treasured by local communities and provide vital lifelines for

:15:24. > :15:31.vulnerable residents. It is interesting to hear that list. Ken

:15:32. > :15:37.Healy mainly how much extra funding the Shadow Chancellor promised? If

:15:38. > :15:43.he goes back and looks at our manifesto, he was committed to

:15:44. > :15:50.devolving ?50 billion of additional spending to local government. He

:15:51. > :15:55.likes to pretend this is simply a matter of effective management. This

:15:56. > :16:10.is stopping councils providing a decent services they want to

:16:11. > :16:16.provide. I will give way and a second. The former Prime Minister

:16:17. > :16:22.inadvertently exposed this dilution first. He wrote to the leader of

:16:23. > :16:27.Oxfordshire County Council and I quote, I was looking at a long list

:16:28. > :16:33.of suggestion to how to mitigate the cops to front line services. This is

:16:34. > :16:41.in addition to the into productive proposals to cheap close children's

:16:42. > :16:48.centres across the country. The lack of understanding and the

:16:49. > :16:51.consequences of his own actions recent bees received the response

:16:52. > :16:57.are regularly received from the council. It explained that 2800

:16:58. > :17:02.council employees have lost their jobs. The remainder had experience

:17:03. > :17:13.peak freezers and below inflation increases for a number of years.

:17:14. > :17:19.Could he clarify on the issue of Labour Party policy. At the moment

:17:20. > :17:25.there is a on which local authorities can raise the council

:17:26. > :17:29.tax by and of the ousted goal for the lay have to go for a local

:17:30. > :17:34.referendum. Does the honourable member agree with the or agree that

:17:35. > :17:39.there should be a referendum if authorities wish to raise it further

:17:40. > :17:49.so that there will be a democratic view from local people. It is an

:17:50. > :17:52.interesting question. I will come onto it shortly. The decision by

:17:53. > :18:01.Surrey County Council who announced they were holding a referendum on a

:18:02. > :18:12.15% increase in council tax. I wonder if my honourable friend for

:18:13. > :18:20.Carol and they will be voting, the likes of the Chancellor of the

:18:21. > :18:27.Exchequer, who lives there. This happens because not a single new

:18:28. > :18:37.penny of extra money was put into local council services. They want to

:18:38. > :18:40.stabilise the care market and stabilise the amount of recruitment

:18:41. > :18:52.and ease the pressure on NHS hospitals. One reason why Surrey 's

:18:53. > :18:58.decision was so striking is that they have been able to increase

:18:59. > :19:04.spending on adult social care by 34%. Some councils have had to the

:19:05. > :19:10.police the spending on that prey almost the same percentage. In fact

:19:11. > :19:13.only two out of 152 local clear authorities have been able to

:19:14. > :19:23.increase their spending more than sorry. So sorry cannot cope with the

:19:24. > :19:28.demand and social care, most even Oxfordshire cannot protect front

:19:29. > :19:32.line services, the impact is disproportionately felt across the

:19:33. > :19:40.country, this bill offers no guarantee that the situation will

:19:41. > :19:45.get better. We'll do the people get, the more the relying on local

:19:46. > :19:52.services. It will have the coolest area the hardest. The Institute for

:19:53. > :19:56.Fiscal Studies, the ten councils that are most don't really have had

:19:57. > :20:07.to cut the services by 53% on average. We cannot even call this a

:20:08. > :20:12.post called Waterloo. Your postcode matters, but it is not lock or

:20:13. > :20:18.chants which determines the quality or quantity of services, it is the

:20:19. > :20:24.actions taken by this government. That is the context we must consider

:20:25. > :20:30.this bill today. Before anyone in the government seeks to advance the

:20:31. > :20:34.idea that local councils are going to get a significant stream of new

:20:35. > :20:41.funding, ministers have always been clear that what they give today, on

:20:42. > :20:45.another day possibly revoke them working, they will take it away.

:20:46. > :20:54.This is meant to be fiscally neutral. I will give way. As the

:20:55. > :21:01.perfect example of that is in Birmingham, which has been brutally

:21:02. > :21:08.treated by this government. ?5.6 million from the front and changes

:21:09. > :21:16.to the new homes bonus means it loses ?5.6 billion -- million

:21:17. > :21:21.pounds. That is a very good point. There are many other local

:21:22. > :21:30.authorities around the country who have seen the housing shortages

:21:31. > :21:41.similarly disadvantaged by the secretary 's decision. As to what

:21:42. > :21:45.extra responsibilities tasked to councils and which of these grants

:21:46. > :21:49.the currently get for these responsibilities will be taken away.

:21:50. > :21:53.They are not being properly funded no, ministers expect them to take

:21:54. > :22:00.even more decisions while losing funding. I do welcome the

:22:01. > :22:07.confirmation that it will not go ahead with his predecessor 's plan.

:22:08. > :22:12.But as I intimated, that begs the question of what would happen to

:22:13. > :22:23.other specialist funding? We have the Housing minister refusing to

:22:24. > :22:41.rule out potentially the end of the ?3 million health grant. The

:22:42. > :22:45.secretary of state has again promised nonlocal authorities will

:22:46. > :22:49.lose out. Does that mean they will lose out not in year one because

:22:50. > :22:55.there could be transition or doesn't mean every council will be better

:22:56. > :23:00.off and move able to meet in full the statutory responsibilities

:23:01. > :23:04.throughout the next Parliament? I know ministers intend to pilot their

:23:05. > :23:14.approach to this policy in certain areas. It is crucial that the system

:23:15. > :23:19.of top occidentalis is clear. It has been indicated that this will be

:23:20. > :23:30.similar to the system introduced under the 50% business rates scheme.

:23:31. > :23:42.That is not very reassuring. If 100% of business rates had been retained,

:23:43. > :23:46.16 councils would have seen the funding decreased by 20% or more in

:23:47. > :23:57.comparison to only one who saw an increase. 12 of them lost more than

:23:58. > :24:07.2% of their funding. It would appear that to have a system of fear

:24:08. > :24:10.funding under 100% business rates retention, the system of tariffs top

:24:11. > :24:14.ups will have to be amended. Why pick this forward no without

:24:15. > :24:22.publishing the responses to the consultation. Without even a date

:24:23. > :24:27.for the fear funding review being published? It makes more questions

:24:28. > :24:39.than it answers. I will ministers handle the business rates authority

:24:40. > :24:43.in the wake of the major government decision, such as the building of

:24:44. > :24:51.the major London -- really term terminus. London has always

:24:52. > :24:58.benefited from business rates from Heathrow. Westminster has benefited

:24:59. > :25:09.because of the proximity to major national assets. This will have

:25:10. > :25:13.little to do with council policy, and all not be of benefit to those

:25:14. > :25:26.who do not have the benefit of such major attractions. We will want to

:25:27. > :25:32.explore what will happen if a major business closes or moves away from

:25:33. > :25:39.the local authority concerned. There would be huge implications for the

:25:40. > :25:47.local services of the major employer. What has been proposed

:25:48. > :25:52.looks less than generous. We do not know for the needs of particular

:25:53. > :25:58.councils would be assessed. The decision to allow only combined

:25:59. > :25:59.authorities to introduce infrastructure appears petty and

:26:00. > :26:18.vindictive. Too many big decisions around how

:26:19. > :26:23.the business rates regime will work in practice are not sure clear. Too

:26:24. > :26:27.many big decisions will also remember the Secretary of State once

:26:28. > :26:31.the new regime is in place. That much is clear. And as the chairman

:26:32. > :26:36.of the Select Committee made clear, it does seem a little drastic to

:26:37. > :26:39.abolish the need for ministers to be held accountable annually for their

:26:40. > :26:49.performance on local Government plans. There will be divisive

:26:50. > :26:57.players on something or other on the House should be able to hold him to

:26:58. > :27:02.account. Local Government in England and local services that people rely

:27:03. > :27:08.been badly treated the party opposite since 2010. This bill could

:27:09. > :27:12.make things worse. We will give the bill of fare listened to Knighton

:27:13. > :27:17.seeks to improve it, but it changes forthcoming, will consider afresh

:27:18. > :27:27.approached the Government's handling of this issue. There are 16 people

:27:28. > :27:38.wanting to speak in this debate. Please keep to ten minutes or under.

:27:39. > :27:47.I'm sorry the Shadow minister's glacier is half empty. He says this

:27:48. > :27:52.Bill has the potential to be able to create a much better situation and I

:27:53. > :27:56.think it has. But he also seems to emphasise he can't think of anything

:27:57. > :28:02.worse. I'm glad he's not voting if the second reading of this Bill to

:28:03. > :28:07.night. The minister referred to it as a once in a generation reform. I

:28:08. > :28:13.suppose I'm at that stage where I can recall my involvement in the

:28:14. > :28:20.1988 local Government Finance bill, when I was a minister taking forward

:28:21. > :28:24.the uniform business rate and I'm delighted my honourable friend has

:28:25. > :28:29.retained the principles which were set out in the uniform business rate

:28:30. > :28:39.which was introduced in order to prevent Labour councils, for example

:28:40. > :28:42.Liverpool, from attacking their own businesses and driving them out of

:28:43. > :28:47.town and driving jobs away the process. I'm glad we are not going

:28:48. > :28:52.to be allowing councils and the freedom to destroy jobs in the way

:28:53. > :29:02.they did prior to the 1980 legislation. I also welcome the

:29:03. > :29:05.embassy 's uncertainty and predictability. In that context, can

:29:06. > :29:12.I asked my honourable friend if he will set out a little more clearly

:29:13. > :29:17.how the reforms which he says are going to be brought into effect in

:29:18. > :29:22.2019, including the new funding formula, how they are going to

:29:23. > :29:28.interact with the four-year settlements which, as I understand,

:29:29. > :29:34.will still be subsisting in 2019 and 2020. For example, adult social care

:29:35. > :29:40.we've heard that councils can increase that precept by an extra

:29:41. > :29:46.amount in the next financial year and ever after. But in 2020, they

:29:47. > :29:51.would not be able to. Others arrange was going to interact with his

:29:52. > :29:58.laudable objective of an judge using all these reforms in 2019 and 2020?

:29:59. > :30:07.Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to say a little about a clause in this

:30:08. > :30:13.Bill. Close for Micro is very relevant in relation to local

:30:14. > :30:20.Government reorganisation. Each of the nine councils in Dorset are

:30:21. > :30:25.currently debating and meeting to decide if they wish to go down the

:30:26. > :30:34.road of a local Government reorganisation. One of the councils,

:30:35. > :30:40.in fact two of the councils, Bournemouth and Poole, seem to

:30:41. > :30:46.support the idea of creating a new unitary authority with Christchurch

:30:47. > :30:52.in the belief that when that new unitary authority is set up, if the

:30:53. > :30:57.Secretary of State was wise enough to -- unwise enough to approve it,

:30:58. > :31:05.that on day one the residents of Christchurch would be paying ?200

:31:06. > :31:12.more in council tax than the people living in the unitary authority area

:31:13. > :31:20.invested in bars is in Bournemouth or pool. My honourable friend

:31:21. > :31:28.confirmed last week it is not possible for an individual 's

:31:29. > :31:35.printable authorities are levy a different Council tax in one part of

:31:36. > :31:43.an area compared with another. I hope my interpretation of clause not

:31:44. > :31:47.-- clause for is incorrect. Where we'd have a unitary authority

:31:48. > :31:52.covering pool, Bournemouth and Christchurch, that from day one, the

:31:53. > :31:56.people of pool and Bournemouth and Christchurch will all be able to

:31:57. > :32:07.play exactly the same level of council tax. Because the council tax

:32:08. > :32:16.at excessive levels has often been interpreted about excessive levels

:32:17. > :32:20.of ingress that as the notes make clear, determination principles for

:32:21. > :32:23.Wetherwick Council ties is excessive allows the Secretary of State to

:32:24. > :32:26.make a statement of principles for determining whether or not council

:32:27. > :32:38.size is excessive and covering a number of years rather than just

:32:39. > :32:42.one. I corrects in thinking if there were a new unitary authority further

:32:43. > :32:48.three mentioned towns, that the Secretary of State would be able to

:32:49. > :32:55.say that there should be one set level of council tax starting from

:32:56. > :33:01.day one? I raised this point because later this week, in both Bournemouth

:33:02. > :33:08.and Poole, councillors will be invited to support this proposal for

:33:09. > :33:14.a unitary authority in the mistaken belief they will continue to be

:33:15. > :33:25.subsidised by local residents for 20 years. And if they were disabused of

:33:26. > :33:31.that and told from day one they would be liable for an increase of

:33:32. > :33:37.up to ?200, I think minds would be concentrated and would be as much

:33:38. > :33:56.enthusiasm from councillors for what is being proposed. I hope I can get

:33:57. > :34:05.Clare answers to those points, the essence of this is if councils

:34:06. > :34:08.impose excessive levels of council tax on their citizens then there

:34:09. > :34:16.should be the safeguard of a referendum. But what is proposed and

:34:17. > :34:21.the local Government reform in Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole

:34:22. > :34:27.is that Christchurch people should be expected to pay extra Council

:34:28. > :34:31.tykes but they won't have the chance of a local referendum to decide if

:34:32. > :34:36.they wish to be abolished and absorbed within a new council. If we

:34:37. > :34:41.can have referenda for levels of tax, why can't we have that for

:34:42. > :34:53.whether or not the council is to be abolished? Something seems to be out

:34:54. > :34:58.of sync. Can I also ask if my honourable friend can be clearer

:34:59. > :35:04.about the pooling arrangements. Why is the Government taken the power to

:35:05. > :35:12.introduce mandatory pooling arrangements and how will they work?

:35:13. > :35:18.All the local authorities be able to be regarded as a pool for the

:35:19. > :35:26.purposes of business rate income and distribution? If so, you may require

:35:27. > :35:40.desirable, but why Mylar have to be imposed by the Government, rather

:35:41. > :35:50.than agreed to locally? And my next point... I'm concerned some

:35:51. > :35:56.businesses because of the powers given in this Bill, may find that

:35:57. > :36:03.they are minorities in an area where they are subject to significant

:36:04. > :36:09.supplements on their business rates. How will we make sure there isn't an

:36:10. > :36:16.impression of a minority of businesses by the majority? The East

:36:17. > :36:20.Dorset, there is a business improvement districts and it is

:36:21. > :36:28.centred on a rundown industrial estate. When that was set up, it was

:36:29. > :36:33.clear that as there was a lot of concern amongst some businesses,

:36:34. > :36:38.they may end up paying extra for offering that was when they used to

:36:39. > :36:44.them. I'd be grateful if my honourable friend because spell out

:36:45. > :36:48.safeguards in place to ensure that hard-pressed businesses do not find

:36:49. > :36:52.themselves in pose the pond with significant increases in terms of

:36:53. > :37:03.supplements or additional business rates. And yet another point...

:37:04. > :37:07.Clause nine. Christchurch Council has been privileged to whether the

:37:08. > :37:15.toilet of the year awards on many occasions! And it has a great

:37:16. > :37:19.selection of public conveniences as would befit the age profile of the

:37:20. > :37:27.population and it being a very important tourist destination.

:37:28. > :37:32.Meanwhile, the borough council in a pool has decided to close half its

:37:33. > :37:41.public toilets, most of the rage of local people. Some councils are now

:37:42. > :37:53.thinking outside the box and saying why can't we have joint arrangement

:37:54. > :37:57.so that public buildings can be made available for public conveniences

:37:58. > :38:03.and it doesn't seem to me on the reading of this clause that any of

:38:04. > :38:12.these reliefs in terms of business rates will be available for a

:38:13. > :38:24.building which is partially consisting of the toilet and as

:38:25. > :38:29.other facilities as well. It difficult to speak about this

:38:30. > :38:37.without punning. And I got the point across though. But why would we wish

:38:38. > :38:42.to artificially restrict such a relief and said they can only be

:38:43. > :38:53.available in a freestanding, dedicated public lavatory. On that

:38:54. > :38:59.point, which does raise humour, I was attending and Age UK event and

:39:00. > :39:02.apparently there are 2 million people in this country you can be no

:39:03. > :39:07.more than ten minutes away from the toilet. If there isn't one

:39:08. > :39:14.available, they can't go out. This is a serious issue that does need

:39:15. > :39:20.money to provide it. In conclusion, this is one of the main reasons why

:39:21. > :39:28.support small district councils which are accountable to the local

:39:29. > :39:32.town and people. Does local people can then decide if they want more

:39:33. > :39:38.money spent on public conveniences or whether they wish to have money

:39:39. > :39:43.spent on public parks. It is better to leave that to the discretion of

:39:44. > :39:44.local councils and that's why I'm against the imposition of unitary

:39:45. > :40:12.authorities in Dawson. In passing, I note the honourable

:40:13. > :40:17.member for Christchurch gave himself credit for the uniform business rate

:40:18. > :40:18.system, but didn't give himself credit for the other part of that's

:40:19. > :40:45.when it came in at same time. feeling the the community charge

:40:46. > :41:03.delivered ready reckoner for local people. I will reappear to the first

:41:04. > :41:09.report from the select committee. As we were doing our enquiry, the

:41:10. > :41:14.government announced a consultation and this was a list of things for

:41:15. > :41:23.them to consider. There are many things which to need looking at. I

:41:24. > :41:29.will not go into the general issues of local government finance. I think

:41:30. > :41:39.they have taken the fair share of the austerity measures since 2010.

:41:40. > :41:50.My only real Sheffield have enjoyed more than their fair share of the

:41:51. > :41:57.local cops. But I do welcome aspects of the devolutionary they mention

:41:58. > :42:01.that the government are heading for. I understand that they have more

:42:02. > :42:08.control, but they have to have more control of raising the money in the

:42:09. > :42:20.first place. This bill in a small way, a very small way, goes in that

:42:21. > :42:25.direction, but it we are still the most centralised country in western

:42:26. > :42:30.Europe. I think the minister was getting slightly carried away when

:42:31. > :42:38.he called it a revolution. I do not see this as the revolutionary change

:42:39. > :42:46.in local government finance. Local authorities having to rely on the

:42:47. > :42:54.council tax. It is the only tax or in local government we are has to be

:42:55. > :42:59.a referendum to increase it by a certain amount. A little point in

:43:00. > :43:06.the proposed legislation is that this house in future will no longer

:43:07. > :43:09.be able to approve those decisions on the threshold at which local

:43:10. > :43:15.councils have to have a referendum with regard to rises in council tax.

:43:16. > :43:22.It is something else which has been taken off from this house. I felt we

:43:23. > :43:30.can debate this. There is also the retention of the growth imperative.

:43:31. > :43:35.There is no power to determine to reduce the multiplier or in the case

:43:36. > :43:42.of this supplement, for the very different cases, for combined

:43:43. > :43:50.authorities to be able to increase the business rates eye of a small

:43:51. > :43:58.moan for specific projects. I think it is good if councils have the

:43:59. > :44:09.ability to work out business rates multipliers. That would take us back

:44:10. > :44:15.to the system before the Honourable member for Christchurch helped bring

:44:16. > :44:26.in the new legislation. The multiplier limited ability to raise

:44:27. > :44:32.business rates. It is limited control. It still leaves it in a

:44:33. > :44:37.very centralised system indeed. Some important details. The appeals

:44:38. > :44:49.system. There is an enormous amount of evidence that the appeals system

:44:50. > :44:55.is a major problem for councils. The cost of any appeal falls on

:44:56. > :44:59.individual councils. I understand local authorities are holding back

:45:00. > :45:08.?1.5 billion in reserves for appeals. Theoretically percent of

:45:09. > :45:16.the business rates risers were subject to appeal. That is a very

:45:17. > :45:23.high number. By far the biggest challenge in this legislation is how

:45:24. > :45:28.you marry together the need to incentivise against the need to

:45:29. > :45:32.equalise within the system to recognise those authorities which

:45:33. > :45:43.cannot grow the base as rapidly as others. How you do that? You cannot

:45:44. > :45:50.do it with one tax. It is like a golfer trying to play around with

:45:51. > :45:57.only one club. I be not going to keep some of that back to help the

:45:58. > :46:03.equalisation which might make the system a lot more simple.

:46:04. > :46:07.Equalisation could never be simple, but this could make it a lot more

:46:08. > :46:13.complicated. I hope the ministers from about that. I will the fact

:46:14. > :46:24.that they are doing the needs assessment with the LGA. But then we

:46:25. > :46:32.get onto the complications of resetting within the system. If you

:46:33. > :46:37.do not reset often enough, local councils who struggle just over a

:46:38. > :46:47.longer period of time. I think there was an interesting idea that you get

:46:48. > :46:54.to the point at Aycliffe edge, all the new business development you

:46:55. > :47:06.have had is no going to be reset. What happens if you have the new

:47:07. > :47:08.development before the reset, the local council does not necessarily

:47:09. > :47:11.want to encourage the development because of it waited a few months,

:47:12. > :47:19.it would get the benefit of the reset. And we going to have a new

:47:20. > :47:26.assessment of the period of the needs assessment? Or is going to

:47:27. > :47:31.last in perpetuity? How is it going to working with the reset? I think

:47:32. > :47:40.it would be much easier to do that if you had it kept as a separate

:47:41. > :47:43.brand within the system. I accept if you had a separate support grant you

:47:44. > :47:49.would need to devolve even more powers to local government. It may

:47:50. > :48:01.be easier to do in the spirit of devolution to give them more power.

:48:02. > :48:09.The attendance allowance was taken off the agenda in the select

:48:10. > :48:16.committee report. The things in relation to transport, skills and

:48:17. > :48:23.economic development, there's hope they could have an immediacy and

:48:24. > :48:28.linking the money together. In principle, the money taken from

:48:29. > :48:38.business rates was for a business activities. I would also say, we

:48:39. > :48:41.have to look at the sections of the powers of section 51 to give

:48:42. > :48:47.guidance. We cannot look at the system without looking at social

:48:48. > :48:53.Kier. We have to have long-term revised arrangement with regard to

:48:54. > :48:56.social care. A real concern in our enquiry is that social care demands

:48:57. > :49:05.are likely to go up faster than business rates. If we are relying on

:49:06. > :49:11.business rates to fund social killer is going to be a growing disparity.

:49:12. > :49:17.The system will never succeed in doing its job. Let's have an

:49:18. > :49:23.independent look at social care with some other form of funding needs to

:49:24. > :49:35.come in to support it. I will give way. He is making a very good point

:49:36. > :49:41.on social care. One solution is plucked out of the ear and regarded

:49:42. > :49:48.as being a golden bullet to tackle a real crisis in funding of social

:49:49. > :49:55.care. It is going up by 5% a year in most local authorities. We DC have

:49:56. > :50:04.that could be incorporated into this bill. I just think the government

:50:05. > :50:14.has to be thinking for the longer term. If they are going to reform

:50:15. > :50:19.the business rates system to start in 2020. One of the responsibilities

:50:20. > :50:28.of local councils is that if we do not address social care and the

:50:29. > :50:35.demand continues to rise we actually are inventing a system which has to

:50:36. > :50:41.feel. I want this to succeed. I want to see more power devolved to local

:50:42. > :50:53.councils. But for that to work, we really need to address this problem.

:50:54. > :51:04.It is a real issue. One other point, the previous Chancellor announced

:51:05. > :51:10.plans to extend small business rates exemption and to change the really

:51:11. > :51:13.multiplier was calculated. That would reduce the amount of money

:51:14. > :51:25.local councils got from the business rate. This either rugby compensation

:51:26. > :51:32.for these changes. They will be reflected in the amount of money the

:51:33. > :51:37.councils get. What of the Chancellor was to make some similar changes to

:51:38. > :51:44.the business rates system, how would local councils be compensated if

:51:45. > :51:52.there was no appropriate grant? It is a very important point. Nobody

:51:53. > :51:58.wants to give up the poor to give up the ability to change the business

:51:59. > :52:04.rates once it is set, but I think the grant claiming powers have been

:52:05. > :52:11.removed. It is a very important point. But this is a fairly small

:52:12. > :52:16.step towards devolution, to give council more power to spend more

:52:17. > :52:23.money and have control over the money that the raise and can spend

:52:24. > :52:29.on the important services. I cannot go along with seeing it as

:52:30. > :52:33.revolutionary, but they would see it as a small step. I look forward to

:52:34. > :52:40.seeing the future consultation on this. It would be remiss not to

:52:41. > :52:43.recognise and congratulate the Secretary of State who will be

:52:44. > :52:56.responding to this debate on his birthday. What a way to spend a

:52:57. > :53:03.plastic. The Guardian suggested he was only 45 years of age. I commend

:53:04. > :53:12.the government on its more flexible approach to local government

:53:13. > :53:16.financing. I would also say that it is a pleasure to speak after the

:53:17. > :53:23.honourable gentleman. I she has concerns about the way in which

:53:24. > :53:28.local authorities may faint owners alike in the system by holding back

:53:29. > :53:34.on new developments to make the benefit of the reset. We have to

:53:35. > :53:47.look at other possible ways that that could be addressed. The City of

:53:48. > :53:52.London Corporation says the ungrateful for the provisions which

:53:53. > :54:02.will see councils compensated for losses from valuation changes. This

:54:03. > :54:09.is particularly helpful after the property downturn in the City of

:54:10. > :54:17.London. It is a substantial rate in the business rates retention scheme.

:54:18. > :54:25.Close to addresses that and is very welcome. Efficiency, there should be

:54:26. > :54:29.discretionary power exercised by the Secretary of State and I hope we

:54:30. > :54:34.will get confirmation as to how he says that power will be used,

:54:35. > :54:43.particularly queer full compensation is going to be provided for losses,

:54:44. > :54:49.it is also correct to say the support the City of London feels for

:54:50. > :54:57.the waiter devolution proposals put forward by the LGA. The city wants

:54:58. > :55:11.to retain a greater proportion of the business rates because it has a

:55:12. > :55:12.very small residential population. I hope all the non-London members will

:55:13. > :55:19.feel that we started looking at feel that we started looking at

:55:20. > :55:24.government finance, we look at the position we start from no. There has

:55:25. > :55:36.been a an accumulation of legislation going back many decades.

:55:37. > :55:44.Few would want to go through the rigmarole entirely from first

:55:45. > :55:49.principles. The principles of the is that many of these things may rule

:55:50. > :56:04.colleagues will feel simply give you get advantages to London.

:56:05. > :56:11.I wanted to turn to the western part of my constituency, Westminster City

:56:12. > :56:14.Council, which is seeking Government support for its western partnership

:56:15. > :56:22.investment programme which may incorporate parts of the London

:56:23. > :56:26.Borough of Camden. This idea aims to maintain private sector investor

:56:27. > :56:30.confidence at a time when businesses are anxious in the imminent impact

:56:31. > :56:35.of the business rates and evaluation and they will be looking for this

:56:36. > :56:39.programme to work alongside this particular bit of legislation. It

:56:40. > :56:43.would consist of transformative works to improve the public realm

:56:44. > :56:50.and the environment in the West End of London, such as Oxford Street,

:56:51. > :56:55.which will in turn secure finance and trigger additional investment by

:56:56. > :57:00.landowners and business occupiers. I accept my local authorities than

:57:01. > :57:04.usual. Westminster contributes 3% of UK tax revenues, making it the

:57:05. > :57:09.highest single contributor of any borough and has the highest business

:57:10. > :57:14.rates collection the UK. It is currently at ?1.8 billion a year,

:57:15. > :57:19.rising it is assumed, to about 2 billion in the next financial year.

:57:20. > :57:24.Ratepayers in Westminster contribute to more business rate supplement and

:57:25. > :57:26.all London bus combine, including some billion pounds towards

:57:27. > :57:32.Crossrail, with businesses in Oxford Street is contributing half of this.

:57:33. > :57:36.I appreciate capacity of West End businesses to continue contributing

:57:37. > :57:41.business rates and revenues for other projects such as Crossrail to

:57:42. > :57:48.is highly dependent upon confidence in the West End operating

:57:49. > :57:52.environment. Major investment to street furniture and infrastructure

:57:53. > :57:57.will be required to be End up to the standard expected by the firms

:57:58. > :58:05.located there and for the millions of people who visit. Existing

:58:06. > :58:07.authorities are simply unable to address these problems and I

:58:08. > :58:16.appreciate that when you present two parts of this central, global city,

:58:17. > :58:19.often, you can't have a mechanism that can be applied, there has to be

:58:20. > :58:24.a sense of being an exceptional state of affairs. It is resolutely

:58:25. > :58:31.designed to improve the dwell time of visitors here and their average

:58:32. > :58:38.expenditure, reversing a recently declining trend compared with other

:58:39. > :58:52.world cities. This will improve tourism and it's an important point

:58:53. > :58:58.to make. It includes the Soho media cluster to the south of Oxford

:58:59. > :59:05.Street, the Harley Street medical cluster north of Oxford Street and

:59:06. > :59:07.the creative quarter around the Strand area and of course, the

:59:08. > :59:12.significant financial services sector which is no longer just a

:59:13. > :59:20.cover-macro city, be very much in the Mayfair and Saint James's area.

:59:21. > :59:30.As far as London is concerned, supply chains will reach out to the

:59:31. > :59:35.UK regions. It is often said London gets a good deal. We get all the

:59:36. > :59:39.infrastructure development, whether infrastructure development, whether

:59:40. > :59:43.important to make a vital case. A important to make a vital case. A

:59:44. > :59:47.lot of our money coming into London, if it didn't come to our capital, it

:59:48. > :59:56.wouldn't come here at all, but another global city. It's also the

:59:57. > :59:59.case that the money invested creates jobs, contractors, construction jobs

:00:00. > :00:09.will go beyond the capital. Certainly for those of you, those

:00:10. > :00:12.members who are walking anywhere nearby here, whether it is Victoria

:00:13. > :00:18.Station or the West End to see what is happening with Crossrail. Huge

:00:19. > :00:25.numbers of jobs are going to other parts of the UK. The truth is, that

:00:26. > :00:32.investment does have great benefits John London and therefore, we need

:00:33. > :00:42.to not look too harshly toward special pleading from the capital

:00:43. > :00:50.city for future elements. It's an important point to make. Because of

:00:51. > :00:56.the iconic opportunities in central London will hinge upon the outcome

:00:57. > :01:00.of a funding decision of the Western polishers programmes which I have

:01:01. > :01:05.referred. Many overseas retail brands and concepts new to the UK

:01:06. > :01:10.will be trialled here in central London of course before being rolled

:01:11. > :01:15.out nationally. These flows between London and the provinces are often

:01:16. > :01:19.two way, with London dependent on supply trains in the region and

:01:20. > :01:23.those regions be very dependent upon London's performance. If the capital

:01:24. > :01:33.succeeds, then there are benefits for the rest of the UK. It is not a

:01:34. > :01:35.0-sum game. It would be icing foolish to go to the success of

:01:36. > :01:41.London because the rest of the London because the rest of the

:01:42. > :01:45.country also would then suffer. My authority in Westminster believes

:01:46. > :01:53.the programme it has in mind could create billions of additional output

:01:54. > :01:58.can generate even more. By producing additional floor space that

:01:59. > :02:04.increases revenues above projections for business rates. The private

:02:05. > :02:08.sector is prepared to invest in a joint up and strategic approach to

:02:09. > :02:11.development in the West End consisting of cash payments from

:02:12. > :02:17.firms and business occupiers toward the public realm and roadwork

:02:18. > :02:25.packages. My authority has submitted that to the Treasury last year and

:02:26. > :02:34.discussions are ongoing. The core of our programme costs ?800 million,

:02:35. > :02:39.and of this, 400 million will be required from the existing sources

:02:40. > :02:44.available to Westminster Council such as cash contributions from the

:02:45. > :02:48.private sector and our own community infrastructure Levy. The preferred

:02:49. > :02:53.funding option would result in Westminster Council really sink

:02:54. > :03:12.potential for something. Business rates, which were looming

:03:13. > :03:17.nightmare for many smaller businesses in my constituency and

:03:18. > :03:22.applies to much of London, but also be the capital city. I appreciate

:03:23. > :03:26.the Government has put together a welcome ?3.4 billion relief scheme

:03:27. > :03:32.nationally and that is designed to benefit the capital city more than

:03:33. > :03:36.any other region. Nonetheless, most recent consultation did not provide

:03:37. > :03:38.some London authorities with sufficient time to work out the

:03:39. > :03:44.extent to which our local businesses be affected. I would make this

:03:45. > :03:48.appeal to the ministers, certainly Westminster City Council would like

:03:49. > :03:52.to see something similar to the 2010 relief scheme and very much support

:03:53. > :03:57.the suggestion that we must bring rateable value into three categories

:03:58. > :04:01.to recognise the varying abilities of small, medium and large

:04:02. > :04:04.businesses to pay business rates. Now take this opportunity to which

:04:05. > :04:09.the Government a great success and I hope it is the first of many moves

:04:10. > :04:14.towards devolution. It has been pointed out this country

:04:15. > :04:18.historically has a centralised tax base of any western European

:04:19. > :04:23.country. I can't be healthy. Not if we are to have a thriving local

:04:24. > :04:39.democracy. This is an important step forward. Is a pleasure to follow the

:04:40. > :04:48.previous speaker. I will support the front bench, but I must say, I'm

:04:49. > :04:55.suspicious, because we've been here before with the Conservative

:04:56. > :05:04.Government. I've been in local Government although Roberto the

:05:05. > :05:12.Fatah's years. -- all the way back to the Thatcher's years. One

:05:13. > :05:16.particular carrot used in local Government bike in the days of

:05:17. > :05:20.Margaret Thatcher was local authorities being told they could

:05:21. > :05:25.give the capital receipts. Initially, they were able to keep

:05:26. > :05:32.going gradually, that was phased out. So let us be careful about the

:05:33. > :05:39.Conservative front bench enticing us to go down a road we may regret,

:05:40. > :05:43.because it seems to me the strategy is shifting the burden away from

:05:44. > :05:47.Central Government for certain services onto local Government and

:05:48. > :05:50.anyone with any experience of local anyone with any experience of local

:05:51. > :05:55.Government knows there will come a point with Central Government will

:05:56. > :05:59.be wanting to couple local Government because they'll be saying

:06:00. > :06:07.to them, you're spending too much money. We've been down here before.

:06:08. > :06:14.I will cautiously go along with the debate subject to if were able to

:06:15. > :06:20.amend. Having said that, he would be remiss of me not to talk about

:06:21. > :06:29.something or other as we outlined earlier. It suffers from potential

:06:30. > :06:34.job losses, library closures, youth services being reduced. There's a

:06:35. > :06:42.whole catalogue. Coventry has had the same problem. It's worth noting

:06:43. > :06:50.that since 2010, there's been a 40% cut in Government funding to local

:06:51. > :06:56.councils. It is full to possible choices onto local authorities. His

:06:57. > :07:04.force them to scale back services as demand increased. The funding gap

:07:05. > :07:11.for local councils is massive. Currently, these places find it a

:07:12. > :07:19.cute. Funding has been cut by massive 45% since 2010.

:07:20. > :07:30.This reduction is expected to rise to 55% by 2020. There's no way to

:07:31. > :07:40.make it up. Unless you local taxation. That's what I alluded to

:07:41. > :07:48.earlier on. But looking a social worker, the pressures create a

:07:49. > :07:52.massive gap by remains between the resources available and funding

:07:53. > :07:57.across the country. The precept of across the country. The precept of

:07:58. > :08:01.by the Government can't make up the shortfall. It's a panic measure that

:08:02. > :08:09.offers too little, too late Morse amend the idea of a postcode

:08:10. > :08:18.lottery. Quality depends on the affluence of residence. These

:08:19. > :08:25.pressures been highlighted recently. They plan to increase council tax by

:08:26. > :08:39.15% and certainly the council do the same thing on local rates increases.

:08:40. > :08:47.This is a Tory run council in an affluent area. It is an omission or

:08:48. > :08:53.failure in the policies of this Government and you must ask if

:08:54. > :08:58.funding is so tight in Surrey, why must everywhere else? More must be

:08:59. > :09:04.done to integrate health and social done to integrate health and social

:09:05. > :09:05.care and certainly in the last Labour Government, they did want to

:09:06. > :09:14.get on board to create an get on board to create an

:09:15. > :09:24.amalgamation of national care services. That was rejected. Failure

:09:25. > :09:31.to deliver and a breakdown in delivery, when we look at business

:09:32. > :09:35.rates, have the retention is welcome. This correct that they can

:09:36. > :09:42.shape their own services, but not at the expense of regional inequality.

:09:43. > :09:51.Poorer regions must not suffer at the expense of which are ones.

:09:52. > :10:01.Finally, once these changes come into effect, I urge the Government

:10:02. > :10:09.promised no area will be worse off for these changes. I also asked them

:10:10. > :10:15.to provide clarity on how this revenue will be distributed, so

:10:16. > :10:22.there's a level playing field. I also think that the minister should

:10:23. > :10:44.be accountable every year. We need to be able to put our case

:10:45. > :10:51.in the chamber. I rise to speak in support of the Local Government

:10:52. > :11:00.Finance Bill. I am glad they are committed to devolution and took a

:11:01. > :11:04.greater power to local authorities. It is good that councils have the

:11:05. > :11:14.money to spend really feel it is needed most in the local area. I

:11:15. > :11:21.know how important it is for local councils to be given the money to

:11:22. > :11:29.manage their own affairs properly. But the aspect of business rates is

:11:30. > :11:36.absolutely essential of the councils are to be able to carry out the

:11:37. > :11:39.It is essentially are able to obtain It is essentially are able to obtain

:11:40. > :11:46.this money and spend it we are necessary. As at the moment, the

:11:47. > :11:53.business rates system is very complex. In its current form,