House of Commons Business and Enterprise Committee The Automotive Industry in the UK Ninth Report of Session 2008–09 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 7 July 2009 HC 550 Published on 17 July 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited ? 0. 00 The Business & Enterprise Committee The Business & Enterprise Committee was appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform.
Current membership Peter Luff MP (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire) (Chairman) Mr Adrian Bailey MP (Labour, West Bromwich West) Roger Berry MP (Labour, Kingswood) Mr Brian Binley MP (Conservative, Northampton South) Mr Michael Clapham MP (Labour, Barnsley West and Penistone) Mr Lindsay Hoyle MP (Labour, Chorley) Miss Julie Kirkbride MP (Conservative, Bromsgrove) Anne Moffat MP (Labour, East Lothian) Mr Mark Oaten MP (Liberal Democrat, Winchester) Lembit Opik MP (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire) Mr Anthony Wright MP (Labour, Great Yarmouth) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via http://www. parliament. uk/parliamentary_committees Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www. parliament. k/bec Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are: Eve Samson (Clerk), Ben Williams (Second Clerk), Janna Jessee (Inquiry Manager), Louise Whitley (Inquiry Manager), Anita Fuki (Senior Committee Assistant), Eleanor Scarnell (Committee Assistant) and Jim Hudson (Committee Support Assistant). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerks of the Business and Enterprise Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5777; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] uk 1 Contents Report 1 Introduction The current state of the United Kingdom automotive industry The future of the industry Page 3 4 6 2 The Automotive Assistance Programme Are the criteria right? Other assistance The scheme in practice 8 8 11 11 3
Other support for the automotive industry Support for LDV Scrappage Scheme Automotive finance Short time working and train to gain 15 15 16 16 17 4 Government support for the industry as a whole Conclusions and recommendations 21 25 Formal Minutes Witnesses List of written evidence List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 28 29 30 31 3 1 Introduction 1. The Automotive Assistance Programme was launched on 27 January 2009, as an attempt to support the industry through the economic crisis. We announced our inquiry into the Automotive Assistance Programme (AAP) on 25 March 2009. We invited evidence on the following points: • • he definition of ‘eligible companies’; the application criteria for the types of projects that are covered by the AAP, including the focus on low-carbon projects; whether the ? 5 million threshold excludes too many SMEs; the criteria used for awarding loans/loans guarantees, and how this compares with the criteria used by the EIB; the degree to which the award of support through this scheme has prevented, or is likely to prevent, companies from abandoning projects or moving them out of the United Kingdom; whether other measures, such as scrappage or support for car finance companies, are required; and any other views stakeholders think the Committee should be aware of. • • • • • 2. Our intention was to hold a single session on the effectiveness of the programme itself. However, events have moved fast.
Since we took our decision, the New Automotive Innovation and Growth Team (NAIGT) (an industry-led project facilitated by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) has presented its report on the future of the automotive industry in the UK. 1 The proposed takeover of LDV has failed and the company has gone into administration. General Motors, which has two major plants and other facilities in the United Kingdom, has also gone into administration. In the light of this we extended our evidence taking, and widened the scope of our inquiry. 3. We took evidence from Professor Richard Parry-Jones CBE, the Chairman of NAIGT, to set a context for the inquiry.
We then travelled to Birmingham where we saw Mr David Smith, Chief Executive, Jaguar Land Rover, Mr Paul Everitt, Chief Executive, of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), Mr Graham Smith, Senior Vice President, External Affairs, Toyota Motor Europe, and Mr Paul Williams, Chief Executive of the Retail Motor Industry Federation. The next day we visited the North West Region where, in addition to visiting Leyland Trucks, we took formal evidence from Mrs Andrea Paver, 1 An Independent Report on the Future of the Automotive Industry in the UK, New Automotive Innovation and Growth Team, BERR, May 2009 (hereafter, NAIGT report) The New Automotive Innovation and Growth Team (NAIGT) was launched in April 2008 to facilitate the development of a collective strategic view from the automotive industry on the innovation and growth challenges that it faces in the period to 2025.
It was an industry-led project facilitated by the Automotive Unit (AU) within the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR). The NAIGT’s work was being delivered through an industry-led Steering Group of senior industrialists, academics and financial analysts experienced in the automotive sector. http://www. berr. gov. uk/whatwedo/sectors/automotive/naigt/page45547. html 4 Managing Director and Mr Denis Culloty, Chief Engineer, of the company and Mr Steve Barfoot, United Kingdom Country Manager, PACCAR Finance International Limited (Leyland Trucks is part of the PACCAR Group). We also took evidence from Mr Chris Gately, Managing Director, Multipart, and Mr Mark Hughes, Executive Director, Economic Development, Northwest Development Agency.
We concluded by taking evidence from Mr Dave Osborne, National Officer for Vehicle Building and Automotive and Mr Roger Maddison, National Officer for Motor Components, Unite the Union and the newly appointed Economic and Business Minister, Ian Lucas MP, accompanied by Ms Jane Whewell, Director, Automotive Sector, and Mr Ian Gregory, Director, Automotive Assistance, of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. We are grateful to all those who submitted written and oral evidence, and we are particularly grateful to the organisations which hosted visits or evidence taking away from Westminster. The current state of the UK automotive industry 4. The Government told us that the manufacturing part of the automotive industry directly employs around 180,000 people;2 the NAIGT report estimates that if a wider range of jobs are included the number directly supported by the automotive industry is around 384,000. 3 The Retail Motor Industry Federation told us “The annual turnover of the United Kingdom retail motor industry is ? 4 billion and it employs 570,000 people in 70,000 businesses”. 4 While jobs in motor retail or services will remain whatever kind of cars are sold, the NAIGT report suggests that 333,000 jobs will be at risk in future if manufacturing moves offshore. A large proportion of United Kingdom production is exported; for example, Toyota exports about 85% of its United Kingdom production, and Jaguar about 80% of its products. 5 5. As the NAIGT report notes “the UK automotive manufacturing sector has moved further away from volume car production by indigenous companies, towards greater dependence on inward investors, and a bias towards luxury niche vehicles, together with engine manufacture”. Professor Parry-Jones told us: we make three million engines a year which is as good as you could ever hope for in any given country. Most of those are small engines for small cars and most of them are exported. On the vehicle assembly itself, […] Because of the historical problems I have described, we have kind of retreated to an assembler of global, mass-market vehicles and a developer of niche premium products such as Land Rover, Jaguar and Aston Martin. 7 The United Kingdom has the second largest premium car industry in the world, after Germany. 8 Scarcely any of the indigenous automotive manufacturers are not ultimately 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ev 64 [BERR] NAIGT report, p 25 Ev 87 [RMIF] Q 62 P 27 Q3 Q 57 5 owned by companies based outside the United Kingdom.
The Committee welcomes the contribution that these foreign-owned companies make to the United Kingdom economy and the United Kingdom automotive sector in particular. 6. The UK industry benefits from the presence of many international companies who have based major assembly plants in the United Kingdom. There is also an extensive supply industry. United Kingdom suppliers have the advantage of producing high quality products and being close to users. Multipart has a network of 900 suppliers in the United Kingdom. 9 The challenge is to ensure that the country remains an attractive place for investment, and that the component supply chain remains strong enough to serve the vehicle assembly plants. As Mr Smith said: Manufacturing operations depend on large numbers of components.
We have approximately 250 suppliers across Europe, a good number in the UK, and without that supply infrastructure, and, again, close to the manufacturing operations where logistics make sense, we would not be as successful and would not have the same capability and that is part of it. 10 Our witnesses shared the NAIGT’s concern that the supply chain was “hollowing out” and that this was “probably the biggest single threat to the world class industry and the world class manufacturing operations that we have here at the vehicle assembly and engine manufacture level”. 11 7. If the UK automotive industry dwindles further, then it will not only be employment which suffers. Automotive companies are responsible for high levels of United Kingdom R&D.
The 2008 R&D scoreboard notes: R&D spending by companies in the UK850 was dominated by five sectors: pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, aerospace and defence, software & computer services, fixed line communications and automobiles and parts, which together accounted for 60% of R&D (see Figure 2). The pharmaceuticals and biotechnology sector was by far the largest investor, accounting for 37% of the UK850 total. 12 Automotive R&D, like the other three leading non-pharmaceutical sectors, accounted for 6% of total R&D. Ford Motor, Jaguar and Land Rover all appear in the Top 20 companies carrying out R&D in the United Kingdom. 8. Not only does the innovation from that R&D strengthen the UK automotive industry itself, it can support other United Kingdom industries. The expertise and equipment needed by the automotive industry underpins many other manufacturing sectors.
As Professor Parry-Jones told us: What are the core processes in any manufacturing industry? Stamping metal, forming it, joining it, machining it, forging it and casting it. If you do not have those 9 10 11 12 QQ 194-198 Q 56 Q 69, see also Q 162 The 2008 R&D Scoreboard, BERR and DIUS, http://www. innovation. gov. uk/rd_scoreboard/ 6 five competencies in your country, it is very hard to be an internationally effective manufacturing economy. Those five core processes of manufacturing are all underpinned by the auto industry. The auto industry has been the innovator in all five of those over the last 100 years. Most other manufacturing industries have piggybacked on the innovation developed by the auto industry. 3 The future of the industry 9. Globally, the automotive industry is clearly going to remain a key manufacturing industry for the foreseeable future. As the NAIGT report says, cars provide 90% of all passenger transport needs and commercial vehicles over 90% of all freight transport needs. There may be some modal switch, but over much of the United Kingdom the car or van will remain the most practical solution. 14 The challenge will be to ensure the automotive industry in the United Kingdom, from major manufacturers to small suppliers, remains healthy. In the longer term, the key to this will be to develop a lead in low carbon technology. 10.
Mr Everitt, Chief Executive of the SMMT told us: One of the limited number of very positive outcomes from the current crisis is a recognition that we cannot live by financial services alone and that to succeed longterm and to generate wealth, prosperity and jobs in this country we need the manufacturing sector. The reality is there are relatively few globally competitive manufacturing sectors in the UK: automotive, aerospace and pharmaceuticals are absolute leaders. Not acting, and particularly not acting in a strategic and long-term way, is a huge risk for us as a country. 15 11. It is clear that the United Kingdom automotive industry is at a crucial moment. As the NAIGT report says: The UK automotive industry has transformed itself in the last decade from a sector with turbulent labour relations and a poor reputation for quality and productivity to one that is fully competitive.
Independent external reliability surveys put UK built cars at the top of the rankings, and productivity of labour relations are among the best in the world. 16 However, there is over-capacity in the global automotive industry, and the recession has revealed that this over-capacity is not sustainable. The NAIGT report identifies the following weaknesses in the sector: • lack of any global volume vehicle manufacturers headquarters in the United Kingdom; 13 14 15 16 Q 15 Q7 Q 54 NAIGT report, p5 7 • lack of critical scale of vehicle manufacture (1. 7 million versus 4-8 million for France, Germany, Japan); shortage of sufficiently skilled workers—shopfloor and R&D; lack of an adequate supply base; historically high interest rates and strong currency that mitigate against export rofitability; lack of orchestrated collaboration among manufacturers and tier one suppliers in the United Kingdom; The last weakness it identifies most concerns us: Government ambivalence towards the automotive sector and the absence of a consistent long-term strategic policy framework. • • • • • • 12. This Report is a rapid response to an urgent situation. It would be inappropriate for us to comment in detail on commercial negotiations relating to individual companies. We are not in a position to comment on the detailed proposals in the NAIGT report. If the problems identified by the NAIGT can be solved, then we believe UK industry could and should flourish.
As well as the reliability, high productivity and good labour relations identified above, the UK industry is diverse, has globally competitive vehicle and power train R&D, and strong premium brands. But its long-term future depends on the Government taking the right actions now to ensure that the industry is sustained through this period of crisis. This Report assesses government policy so far. 8 2 The Automotive Assistance Programme 13. The Automotive Assistance Programme was announced on 27 January 2009 and received state aid approval from the European Commission on 27 February 2009. The Government told us: The Automotive Assistance Programme (AAP) is a support package that offers a total of ? 2. bn of loan guarantees or loans to the UK automotive sector, which are available for draw down over a two-year period ending December 2010. The final maturity dates of such loans and guarantees can extend beyond 2010. The scheme is designed primarily to use Government guarantees to unlock up to ? 1. 3bn loans from the European Investment Bank (EIB) and a further ? 1bn in loans from other lenders. In exceptional circumstances, Government loans may be provided under the AAP. 17 14. To be eligible, a company should have a turnover of a least ? 25 million per year, and, at least at the start of the scheme, should be proposing an investment of a least ? 5 million. Further criteria are: •
Investment proposals should be consistent, deliver new activity or investment that would not happen without the provision of Government support and be consistent with the Government’s objectives for the loan carbon economy. Proposals should be in need of a Government guarantee in respect of lending from the EIB or another bank; as a general rule, it is not intended that guarantees would exceed 75% of any loans, although the Temporary State Aid Framework provides flexibility to consider guarantees up to 90%. In addition, the Government is also prepared to consider direct loans in exceptional circumstances. Companies should be viable as at 1 July 2008. • •
Projects need to be consistent with the Government’s plans for a low carbon economy. In the words of the Government: Principally the ? 2. 3 billion support package aims to support the continued delivery of the investment vital to ensure that the UK industry emerges from the current downturn with the skills and technology base needed to be competitive in the global automotive market. 18 Are the criteria right? 15. In principle, supporting continued investment to ensure that the British automotive industry is well placed to play a leading role in any upturn should be sensible. Moreover, the requirement that projects should be compatible with the Government’s plans for a low carbon economy fits with the NAIGT’s vision of: 17 18
Ev 64 [BERR] Ev 65 [BERR] 9 a competitive, growing and dynamic industry making a large and increasing contribution to the UK’s employment and prosperity, playing a decisive global role in developing exciting, low carbon vehicle transportation solutions. 19 There was widespread support for encouragement of green technologies;20 Mr David Smith, Chief Executive of Jaguar Land Rover agreed that “environmental innovation is absolutely critical to our future”. 21 The CBI considered that: The offer of loans and loan guarantees within the Automotive Assistance Programme is a reasonable policy response to the difficult credit conditions facing car-makers and suppliers.
Rather than propping up failing companies, the scheme should help to unlock funds that will allow viable firms to continue with their investment plans. In linking funds to only ‘low carbon’ related projects, the government is encouraging the industry to make transformational investments to position the United Kingdom as a major player in a future low carbon economy, which is welcomed by the CBI. 22 As Mr David Smith said: if we want to seriously have a low carbon vehicle industry in the United Kingdom we are going to have to invest in it. The Germans are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in their vehicle technologies and there are similar investments from the Japanese, the US and certainly the French. We either choose to make these investments now or we do not. 23 16.
In contrast, Mr Culloty, Chief Engineer of Leyland Trucks, pointed out that low carbon vehicles might be important, but there were wider issues to consider and that “We would encourage a broad perspective to include advanced safety concepts, road-friendly concepts and more beyond just low carbon vehicle initiatives alone. ”24 He also called for “better focused and targeted grant support for real added value technical projects. It would not just be low carbon and electric trucks that may or may not happen, it would be optimising the practical real solutions that we know will be on the road in the next four to five years. ” We agree that it is sensible to use government support for the automotive industry to foster innovation, and that the emphasis on low carbon technology is appropriate.
This approach is a key part of the package. However, it is not all that is required; other innovative technologies, such as those relating to safety, should also be eligible for support. 17. Witnesses were also concerned that the eligibility criteria were set too high, both in terms of the turnover required of companies involved, and in terms of the size of the project proposed. The Enterprise Finance Guarantee Scheme, which provides guarantees for SME lending in all sectors, covers companies with a turnover of up to ? 25 million, but 19 20 21 22 23 24 NAIGT report, p 17 Ev 88 [Semta], Ev 83 [GLA], Ev 89 [SMMT] Q 60 Ev 74 [CBI] Q 85 Q 236 10 only deals with loans of up to ? 1 million.
While the Department had said it would be flexible about the threshold for applications, many witnesses felt there was an unhelpful gap between the two schemes. Mr Ian Gregory of the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), told us there was a concern that setting a lower threshold: might swamp the scheme with a lot of very small applications, but we are entirely happy to discuss projects smaller than that, and I know the Minister wants me to look at any flexibility on that. 25 The new Minister emphasised that: The message going out today is, “Don’t let that ? 5 million barrier prevent you from approaching the scheme. ”26 However, at the time of writing, the information on the BIS website says quite clearly “Projects must be for a minimum value of ? 5 million. ”27 18.
As noted above, the NAIGT report drew attention to the “hollowing out” of the supply chain in the United Kingdom. It warned that: a competitive UK supply chain is essential to retaining an increasing investment by vehicle manufacturers in the UK, as well as maximising the added value in that supply chain. Supply chains, rather than individual companies, compete on the international stage. 28 Our witnesses agreed that the supply chain needed to be strengthened and supported. We ourselves are concerned that if the threshold for projects which can be supported under the AAP is too high, supply chain companies will not be able to access vital support. 19. We also heard that the criteria for support might mean the most innovative companies were excluded.
Semta, the Sector Skills Council for science, engineering and manufacturing technologies in the United Kingdom, told us that “given the focus on innovative low carbon investment” there was disappointment “that smaller companies, which are developing exciting new technology in this area, are not able to access the funding”. 29 Mr Gately of Multipart told us that the companies too small to qualify were “where the innovation starts”30 and “if you are going to do something real you have got to push it hard by looking at those small organisations that will be innovative and drive change”. 31 20. We understand the Government’s initial concern that if eligibility criteria were set too low the scheme would be swamped.
However, there is too great a gap between eligibility for the Enterprise Finance Guarantee Scheme, and eligibility for the Automotive Assistance Programme. We recommend that the loan guarantee threshold 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Q 395 Q 395 http://www. berr. gov. uk/whatwedo/sectors/automotive/aap/page50296. html P 49 Ev 88 [Semta] Q 209 Q 212 11 for the Automotive Assistance Programme should be lowered urgently to ? 1 million. Moreover, the Government has said that under exceptional circumstances it may make direct loans to automotive companies. There should be no lower limit on such loans. Other assistance 21. Witnesses also warned that assistance to the automotive industry was required urgently, and that in the short term more was needed.
Professor Parry-Jones told us: The speed of response of the various initiatives that have been requested by the industry has not been quick enough. Time is of the essence during this crisis because this industry probably more than most has been hit by the double whammy of collapsing consumer confidence and therefore collapsing demand and of course the shortage of credit availability for industry. The cash flow issues that rapidly plunging demand have imposed on the industry have really high fixed costs. It is very difficult to cut cash requirements in this industry. That has been exacerbated by the fact that credit lines cannot be extended. 32 22.
Like other witnesses, Professor Parry-Jones suggested that other types of help were also needed. He suggested help was needed to provide access to finance for car buyers, and finance was also raised by other witnesses. There was support for some sort of scrappage scheme. Both these issues are discussed later in this Report. Companies need to survive this recession in order to help produce the low carbon vehicles of the future. Some will need help with their current range of products. We expect the Government to show a pragmatic approach to ensuring the future of the industry; its help needs to be swift, and it needs to deal with current problems.
The AAP should be flexible enough to support industry in other ways than simply through guaranteeing loans to support investment in low carbon technology. The scheme in practice 23. Despite the high hopes for the AAP, the scheme has been slow to produce results. When we took evidence from the Department, the Chairman asked how many projects had been supported so far: Ian Lucas: I think it is a round figure. Mr Gregory: It is a round number; it is none. 33 On 17 June, in response to a PQ, we were given the following information: We are currently in detailed discussions with a number of businesses about their applications for funding under the Automotive Assistance Programme (AAP). 2 33 Q 33 Q 384 12 There have been more than 70 further requests for information on the scheme with the AAP team working with companies resulting in around 15 approaches being developed into detailed discussions with BIS for serious applications. The details are commercially sensitive and subject to agreement. However, some details about the support provided under the AAP will become available in due course. 34 24. The Department has made reasonable attempts to publicise the scheme. Officials have tried to reach out to the industry, approaching the SMMT to use their networks to publicise the scheme and briefing RDAs about the support available. 5 Given the importance we place on the supply chain, we were particularly pleased to learn that they had used a Jaguar Land Rover supplier seminar to ensure that suppliers were aware of the scheme and were in talks with other OEMs36 about the possibility of working with them to reach their supplier base. 37 In addition, Ms Whewell told us: I think one other point to flag is that Ian Pearson38 has also written specifically to the supply chain via the manufacturers on more than one occasion setting out a complete list tailored to the automotive sector of all the support available. That has been sent to the manufacturers, who have undertaken to send it to their entire supply chain and we have evidence that it has been getting through. 39 25. It was also clear that not all the delays arose from the Government side.
Mr Gregory told us that at least two companies in negotiations with the Department had asked them to be delayed to allow time for them to approach the banks and that: We have been proceeding in almost every case at the pace which has been dictated to us by the company. The last thing I want to do is to cut across their commercial relationships with other customers or with banks and queer that pitch. 40 26. There are particular difficulties in that a loan guarantee scheme depends on the existence of loans to guarantee. The SMMT told us that “the banking sector is currently in many cases reluctant to provide credit to companies within the automotive sector”. 41 The Government has attempted to address this. It has involved banks in publicising the AAP, and ensured that they attended the supplier seminar in March. 2 Indeed, Mr Gregory went further: a bank might take the view at a corporate level that it wishes to be helpful to the sector. It is very difficult to translate that on the ground into a particular person in a 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 HC Deb, 17 June 2009, col 416W Q 351 Original Equipment Manufacturers – essentially, vehicle producers. Q 50 The Minister previously responsible for the automotive industry. Q 353 Q 389 Ev 83 [GLA], see also Q 71 Q 391 13 bank thinking about lending to company X for project Y. Where we can, we will get involved in those relationships. We want to be step by step with the bank as they are considering the proposition.
As the Minister has already said, if it proves that the bank is simply unwilling to finance, we do have in extremis the ability to make a direct loan and it seems to me in that case the additionality argument is quite strong because clearly the bank is unwilling in a particular proposition to loan. 43 27. The Government ascribed the delays in advancing help under the scheme to individual companies’ desire to deal directly with their own banks. Nonetheless, the industry considered that although the AAP was “exactly what we were looking for”,44 administration of the scheme was imperfect. There was a fear that the criteria were not as flexibly interpreted as they might be, or might be elsewhere. 5 There is certainly a widely held view that the scheme is slow and bureaucratic. 46 28. The SMMT told us: Some companies have found it initially difficult to gain access to relevant information and to meet all the eligibility criteria. The process has been improving but such initial obstacles have had an impact on take-up. Even though the AAP directorate has proved helpful in assisting and directing companies through the application process, for many of our smaller members the application process remains confusing and unclear and all the companies who have shown an initial expression of interest have found the process longer than anticipated. 7 General Motors pointed out that the delay was inherent in the way the scheme worked: To be able to apply for AAP support companies must provide evidence of support from a bank. The AAP requires a company to have approached a bank (most will already have exhausted all opportunities before approaching the AAP) for support and if rejected, enquire whether support could be achieved through an HMG loan guarantee. Although we understand that BERR must ensure enough evidence is provided to satisfy requirements that tax payers money will be protected the balance between the time to undertake this and the rate at which the industry is continuing to decline must be considered. 48 29. Moreover, where negotiations had started, progress appears to have been slow and difficult.
It does not seem to have taken account of strategic priorities. Professor ParryJones told us: 43 44 45 46 47 48 Q 391 Q 69 Q 82 Q 218 Ev 89 [BERR] Ev 79 [General Motors] 14 The large car sector in many ways is an even more important sector to develop the technology for lower carbon vehicles than the small car sector. That may sound surprising and counter-intuitive. Large car customers are more affluent than small car customers. In the early stages of deploying new technology it is inevitably more expensive for two reasons. One is because it is early we have not learned how to make it cheap yet and the second is it is small scale so we have not benefited from economies of scale. [… Jaguar Land Rover first of all needs to reduce the carbon emissions in its fleet to be competitive with Mercedes, BMW and Lexus and, secondly, it provides the industrial base opportunity for Britain to participate in that in real time with regard to piloting in the premium sector. If we miss that opportunity it will be really difficult to piggy-back on it for the volume applications later. 49 30. Despite its strategic importance, and although the Government considered that Jaguar Land Rover was a “top priority”, the company told us it had proved impossible to conclude negotiations between the company and BERR about the terms of a guarantee,50 even though it had “already received loan approval from the EIB for a substantial facility, ? 340 million, against our future technology investments. To unlock that we have to have the loan guarantees in place from the Government”. 1 The premium car sector and its supply chain is likely to be the source of many of the innovations which, used more widely, will aid the transition to low carbon vehicles. The fact that the United Kingdom has the second largest premium car industry in the world should be seen as a key strategic strength. Jaguar Land Rover has already secured funding for its future technology investments; all that is under discussion is the Government’s guarantee. As at 7 July 2009 there has been no indication that there will be such a guarantee: we are astounded that it has taken so long to arrange this, particularly since the support needed is so limited. 31. It is clear that the Government has taken a number of sensible steps to make the AAP successful.
It is working with a wide range of people within the industry, it has not forgotten the need to reach the supply chain, and it is trying to involve the banks in the scheme. However, we cannot discount the industry’s complaints about the delays in agreeing support measures, and we are profoundly disappointed that to date not one single penny has been advanced through the scheme. We hope that this will change rapidly. 49 50 51 Q 12 QQ 55-56 Q 53 15 3 Other support for the automotive industry 32. The AAP is not the only source of government support for the industry. As the government memorandum said: Amongst the wider automotive interventions are the Enterprise Finance Guarantee (EFG), Automotive Access to Finance, Scrappage, and the Trade Credit Insurance Top-up Scheme.
The EFG scheme is available for viable companies with a turnover of up to ? 25 million, and for loans up to ? 1 million, that in normal circumstances would be able to secure lending from banks but who cannot secure bank lending in the current economic climate. The AAP also sits alongside the Government’s wider commitments on Ultra Low Carbon Vehicles, and Investing in a Low Carbon Britain. 52 We have asked the Government to quantify the support received from other measures, if it was possible to do so. The supplementary memorandum published with this Report gives some idea of the range of help offered. The programmes directly relating to the automotive industry are: • • • ?300 million for the Scrappage Scheme; ? 50 million for ultra low carbon vehicles and infrastructure; ? 7. 7 million taken forward by the Centre of Excellence for Low Carbon and Fuel Cells; a ? 20 million Department for Transport public procurement programme; and more than ? 45 million for the Premium Automotive R programme. • • In addition, the industry can also access more general government support through the Enterprise Finance Guarantee Scheme (supporting up to ? 1. 3 billion of bank loans), the Working Capital Scheme (supporting up to ? 20 billion of short-term bank lending for companies with a turnover of up to ? 500 million) and the Capital for Enterprise Fund, which has ? 75 million of equity. 53 Support for LDV 33.
At the beginning of the year it became clear that LDV, a Birmingham-based van manufacturer employing 850 people directly was in severe financial difficulties. Although it refused the company’s request for a ? 30 million loan,54 the Government made available a ? 5 million bridging loan to allow time for Weststar, a potential buyer of LDV, to secure 52 53 54 Ev 64 [BERR] Ev 103 [BIS] BBC website, 23 February, 2009 16 finance. In the event, only part of this was drawn down as the company ultimately decided that it would not be able to secure the funding to run the business. Ms Whewell told us: The company has been loss-making since 2002. It clearly needs major investment. It has very considerable debts. It is important that it has long-term commitment from a new investor.
There was more money available to be drawn down to give longer for decisions to be taken. They chose not to draw that money down. 55 The Minister assured us that: I think the trade unions are on record as saying the Government was very committed and did an awful lot to try to resolve the situation with LDV. As far as I am concerned, speaking personally, I have an open door if there is any individual case, and certainly from my discussions with officials so far we are extremely committed to helping in any way we can. 56 On the basis of the evidence available to us, we conclude the Government responded appropriately to the situation. Scrappage Scheme 34.
We announced our inquiry before the Government had implemented its Scrappage Scheme. There was strong support for such a scheme in our written evidence, which drew attention to the German scheme in which there was a premium of €2,500 when cars of over nine years old are scrapped and replaced by a new or nearly new used car meeting at least Euro 4 exhaust emissions standards. The British scheme, announced in the Budget on 22 April 2009, provides a subsidy of ? 2000, half from the Government, half from the manufacturer, to those who trade in a car more than 10 years old to buy a new one. As well as temporarily supporting demand for new cars, the scheme should reduce emissions and increase road safety.
Some witnesses regretted that the scheme had been altered at short notice to reduce the amount of support from the Government. However, on 15 June, BIS announced “Over 60,000 orders have now been taken by manufacturers since the subsidy of ? 2,000 was announced in the Budget to scrap vehicles of 10-years-old or more. ”57 Despite its relatively late introduction, there are encouraging signs that the Scrappage Scheme has been effective, and we welcome its success. We expect the Government to keep the scheme under review and to respond to any new evidence about its effectiveness. Automotive finance 35. While witnesses welcomed the help that had been given, there were calls to provide further support for motor finance.
This finance does not simply fund customer credit, but provides inventory and other funding lines for dealers. SMMT suggested that the “Bank of England’s Special Liquidity Scheme (SLS) and/or the Debt Management Office (DMO)’s 55 56 57 Q 342 Q 337 http://nds. coi. gov. uk/clientmicrosite/ Content/Detail. aspx? ClientId=431=2=403482=36 17 Credit Guarantee Scheme (CGS) should be extended to asset-based lenders to help address the problem—including on level playing-field grounds. ”58 Although the government memorandum said “Ministers are working with the motor finance industry and other stakeholders on options to improve funding to car finance companies”,59 no visible progress has been made.
Ms Whewell told us the scheme was probably the most complex piece of work she had ever been involved in: It involves extremely complicated financial instruments. Progress has been made, but I agree it has been quite slow. Where we are now is seeking to construct a financial instrument which would give access to the liquidity they are seeking, but we have been told very clearly by the industry that they must have legal certainty, and that is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for but that will require us to go to the European Commission for clearance of what we would propose to do so that they can be satisfied it is not an unreasonable state aid, and they have told us that that will take several months. 0 However, Mr Culloty noted that the state aid hurdle had not been raised until late in negotiations which had begun six months before, and warned that “even if the scheme was put on the table tomorrow you are talking about the thick end of a year from […] the discussion commencing and the solution being delivered”. 61 36. Over twice as many people are employed in automotive retail as are employed in automotive manufacturing. 62 We appreciate the difficulties in setting in place a scheme to support automotive finance. However, we also note that the French Government already appears to have provided a €2 billion refinancing facility for automotive finance companies. 63 Once again the Government has held out the possibility of action but has not yet delivered. We seek clarification of the Government’s intentions. Short time working and Train to Gain 37. Automotive companies in the United Kingdom have responded to the recession by temporary lay-offs.
Workers’ wages are reduced, but they do not lose their employment and their companies retain their skills. Indeed, when we visited Leyland Trucks, the assembly line had only just restarted after such a shut down. 38. In many European countries there is state support for wages if companies need to reduce costs by laying workers off temporarily, or reducing working hours. The SMMT told us that support for short-time working was a key element of the package they had put forward for government support last December. 64 Unite the Union told us: 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Ev 93 [SMMT] Ev 64 [BERR] Q 398 Q 263 Q 160 Presidence de la Republic, Pacte Automobile, Dossier de Presse, Palais de l’Elysee, 9 Feb, 2009, pont 2 Q 113 18
In sharp contrast to the United Kingdom, the state in a number of EU member nations has played an active role in providing financial subsidies to ensure that the wages of the workers affected are maintained at or close to their normal level. 65 The Union’s memorandum summarised arrangements in four states: 65 Ev 98 [Unite the Union] 19 Country Germany Short time working scheme State funded payments: 67% of last monthly net wage (workers with children) 60% for single employees. Payments available for up to six months normally but can be up to 12 months in exceptional circumstances affecting specific sectors or regions or 24 months in very exceptional circumstances affecting the entire labour market.
State funded payments for up to 1000 hours per employee on short time working: 60% of gross hourly wage (80% for the chemical industry). State will pay blue collar workers 75% of maximum wage but not more than 2,206 euros per month for single earners with or without children for six months and 2,056 euros per month for the next six months. State will pay 75% of the worker’s wage for the first two months and 70% for the next four months up to a maximum of 183 euros per day. In return companies undertake to (re)train the affected workers. France Belgium Netherlands Source: Glassner, V. and Galgoczi, B. Plant Level Responses to the Economic Crisis in Europe. ETUI 2009, Ev 98 [Unite the Union] 39.
Ms Whewell told us: other countries are indeed making […] extensive use of this system, but in almost all cases this has in fact been a fundamental part of their social security system and both manufacturers themselves and in many cases workers themselves have been paying into a system almost a form of insurance, you could say. So they are now getting paid back what they have paid in, and indeed in some countries the very, very high social charges about which employers and companies complain bitterly […] So we are not comparing like with like with a system into which companies and sometimes workers themselves have been paying in for sometimes many years and now they are paying out. So it is apples and pears. 6 A paper for the Employment Committee of the Council of the European Union notes that some states have extended their short time working schemes, and others have introduced such schemes; more states may follow this lead. 67 Mr Lucas pointed out that the amount of funding available through the Train to Gain scheme had been increased from ? 60 million to ? 100 million. So I would say that the Government is putting money into supporting employees who are on short-time working to use it as an opportunity to train them. That position is happening in England at the moment and I think there has been quite a flexible and positive response from the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills in respect of Train to Gain in putting forward Train to Gain as a scheme which could be used in this context. 68 66 67 68
Q 415, see also Q 114 Brussels, 26 May 2009, 100015/1/09/ REV 1, ADD 2 Q 413 20 40. The Welsh Assembly Government has introduced ProAct, a scheme to support businesses which introduce short time working. Their website describes it as follows: The scheme provides training for employees who are on short time working, and helps keep skilled staff who may otherwise be made redundant. ProAct is available to businesses which have introduced short time working and face the threat of redundancies. It is initially available for 12 months to March 2010. It is flexible, but broadly offers: Training Costs up to ? 2,000 per individual Wage subsidy up to ? 2,000 (? 50 a day) per individual during this training (up to 12 months). 9 41. Additional help from Train to Gain was welcomed by our witnesses, and it was felt the system was effective. There were also other sources of training, such as regional development agencies—indeed two of our witnesses, Leyland Trucks and Bentley spoke warmly of training support that had been offered through this route. However, it was clear the industry did not consider Train to Gain as a complete substitute for support for short time working. 42. The Government tells us that “The British system of tax credits already provides an automatic increase in incomes to families when wage income is reduced as a result of a reduced working week. 70 We do not understand how the tax credit system can be described as automatic. It depends on workers identifying that changes in their working patterns may increase their eligibility and making sure that HMRC has the right information. Recipients would need to work at least 16 hours a week to qualify. 71 We have seen no publicity for the use of tax credits in this way, and none of the witnesses in our inquiry seemed aware of the option. We are surprised that if it is a solution, it is not better publicised. 43. We accept that government financial support for short time working is not an integral part of the United Kingdom welfare system, and that help is forthcoming through Train to Gain.
Nonetheless, we also note that some countries have increased the level of support they offer through their schemes, or are considering introducing such support. If British industry is to remain competitive, it will need to retain skilled workers. The Government should be doing far more to help it do this. We do not believe the tax credit scheme is the way to support short time working. We believe there is scope for more ambitious and innovative approaches, like the ProAct scheme adopted by the Welsh Assembly Government. 69 70 71 www. business-support-wales. gov. uk. See also Ev 102 [Unite the Union]. Ev 103 [BIS] HMRC website, available at: http://www. taxcredits. inlandrevenue. gov. uk/Qualify/WhatAreTaxCredits. aspx as at 10 July 2009 1 4 Government support for the industry as a whole 44. One of the themes of the NAIGT report is the need for Government to support the automotive industry. The NAIGT identifies “a supportive host Government—in policy, rhetoric, tone and responsiveness”72 as key to the sector’s success. Professor Parry-Jones told us that the United Kingdom Government was not seen as supportive, although, in general: The evidence that we have collected suggests that this […] is more a problem of perception, by repetitive actions or inactions. More recently I think the issue has been one of inaction rather than lack of response to specific opportunities. 73 45.
New Industry, New Jobs calls for “a more strategic approach to the Government’s role as a market shaper” and warns: the Government will not achieve this goal unless there is a machinery and a culture in place that considers and acts on the wider industrial implications of Government action. In future, when regulating in ways that will affect demand in the UK, policymakers should assess the potential supply chain opportunities for UK-based businesses and their employees as an integral part of planning work. This practice cannot be limited to one or more Government Departments: it must be replicated across all Departments. 74 However, the Government approach to industrial activism appears inconsistent.
Mr Williams of the Retail Motor Industry Federation told us that changes in vehicle excise duty had cost the industry ? 80 million per year. 75 Conversely, Leyland was disappointed that strategies to support the market focused on the car industry and neglected the van and commercial vehicle sector, where government intervention could also both support the industry and reduce pollution, such as Reduced Pollution Certificates where lower excise duty was charged on a low emission vehicle. 76 46. SMMT told us: there needs to be a more joined up approach when thinking about the impact other government measures are having on the industry and the need to better balance environmental objectives with support for British built cars during the downturn.
At the top end of the market, any benefits from BERR’s attempts to help the industry are more than likely to be offset by the negative impact of changes HM Treasury 72 73 74 75 76 P9 Q 52 Building Britain’s Future: New Industry, New Jobs, HM Government, April 2009, 4. 19 Q 141 Q 272 22 announced in the budget such as removing the ? 80,000 cap on car list prices used to calculate the taxable benefit arising from company cars. 77 Professor Parry-Jones similarly warned that “if we legislate for too rapid and too punitive a reduction of carbon on premium vehicles, we will not give time for our indigenous manufacturers to respond to the international agenda”. 78 It is important that the entire Government shares a strategic approach to the UK automotive industry.
This means that matters such as taxation, environmental targets and support measures should be considered together to ensure they do not inadvertently conflict. 47. The impact of the lack of a strategic whole government approach is likely to have been increased by the current economic situation. The United Kingdom automotive industry may be fragile, but as Mr Everitt said: over the recent period UK facilities have been well invested in, the workforce have demonstrated a capability, flexibility and determination to win business when up against plants across Europe and elsewhere, and we have succeeded on a number of occasions in a number of competitions to retain, and indeed grow, the model line-up here in the UK.
I believe we entered this period probably stronger and more resilient than at any time in the past. The key issue for us is being able to sustain our industrial capability through the recession so that we are able to take advantage of the upturn as and when it comes. 79 Professor Parry-Jones warned that the UK Government had appeared less willing to support the industry through the current crisis than governments elsewhere: I believe that we have given less support and that our responsiveness has been more delayed. This is not just a short term issue to keep the industry healthy and prevent acceleration of this hollowing out we talked about earlier. It is also an issue of perception.
International investors sitting in these foreign countries will look at what is going on and they will say, “It looks like the Germany, French and Japanese Governments really want companies to make cars in their countries. I am not sure about the UK. ”80 48. We share the concerns that the Government has not acted as quickly or decisively as other EU governments. For example, the ? 2. 3 billion of the automotive assistance scheme and the ? 1. 3 billion of the EFG compares with French support of over €9 billion for the automotive sector alone81 (with a further €5 billion in loan guarantees to companies in any sector)82 or the €100 billion “Germany fund”,83 to provide financial help, including loan guarantees. 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
Ev 89 [SMMT] Q 19 Q 59 Q 37 Pacte Automobile: €6. 5bn to help finance development programmes, €2bn for automotive finance and €600m for modernisation. Pacte Automobile, pont 3 ; €4bn SMEs ; €1bn any sector. Bloomberg, 10 Jan 2009 23 49. The Minister and the officials who gave evidence were clearly committed to the industry and working very hard. However, it takes more than a few dedicated individuals to demonstrate government commitment. The industry must believe that the entire Government is dedicated to it. That is clearly not the case. Witnesses complained that government structures were fragmented, and that help was hard to access, even when it did exist.
Mr Hughes, of the Northwest Development Agency, noted: skills and innovation […] are the two key things over the medium and long-term. There is a wealth of resources, a wealth of money available across Government in those areas, it is just not coordinated enough and delivered at the right level enough. You can look at billions that are spent and made available for skills development and similar numbers available for innovation, but they are not channelled through an industry window and in a particular way. 84 Witnesses told us there were no incentives which would lead an international company to place R&D in the United Kingdom. Even where help was being channelled to the industry, the Government did not appear to give it high priority.
Mr Everitt told us: It is true that the Automotive Unit is relatively small and dealing now with a significant number of major schemes. Equally, they have been allocated new resources but it is as and when they can as opposed to, “This is a key and essential series of programmes that have to be resourced as soon as we can to the best that we can”. They are trying their best within the resources that they have. 85 50. Witnesses from the industry considered that support for the automotive sector was not a matter of picking winners, but working collaboratively with the industry to have a strategic relationship and long-term commitment to create an environment in which the sector could grow and prosper. They emphasised that this approach was already taken by competitors. 6 The danger is that without a clear government strategy, and sufficient support, valuable skills and capacity will be lost to countries which more clearly demonstrate their readiness to support the industry. In some cases this will be as much about rhetoric and perception as about real levels of support, but the effect will be the same. As Professor Parry-Jones said: All we are asking for is that the British Government gets behind the industry in the same way as the Japanese, the German and the French Governments get behind the industry. We are not asking for a completely laissez faire, “You get on with it and may the fittest survive. We will go and do something else. ” If we pursue laissez faire, I am afraid the Germans, the Japanese and the French will win. 7 51. We believe the Government is committed to the future of the automotive industry in the United Kingdom. It has provided substantial assistance to the industry, and we welcome the fact that the Minister told us he was ready to intervene to help companies in difficulties. Nonetheless, the help given has been slower than in other countries. 84 85 86 87 Q 298 Q 95 QQ128 -130 Q 24 24 Worse still, there are perceptions that the Government does not have a coherent and supportive policy for the industry. This is not just a problem during the current economic difficulties; government support for the industry will determine its long term success.
The Government must not only support individual companies, but be seen to support the industry as a whole, and act with more urgency and consistency than it has done so far. 25 Conclusions and recommendations The future of the industry 1. If the problems identified by the NAIGT can be solved, then we believe UK industry could and should flourish. As well as the reliability, high productivity and good labour relations identified above, the UK industry is diverse, has globally competitive vehicle and power train R&D, and strong premium brands. But its long-term future depends on Government taking the right actions now to ensure that the industry is sustained through this period of crisis. (Paragraph 12) Criteria for AAP support 2.
We agree that it is sensible to use government support for the automotive industry to foster innovation, and that the emphasis on low carbon technology is appropriate. This approach is a key part of the package. However, it is not all that is required; other innovative technologies, such as those relating to safety, should also be eligible for support. (Paragraph 16) We understand the Government’s initial concern that if eligibility criteria were set too low the scheme would be swamped. However, there is too great a gap between eligibility for the Enterprise Finance Guarantee Scheme, and eligibility for the Automotive Assistance Programme. We recommend that the loan guarantee threshold for the Automotive Assistance Programme should be lowered urgently to ? 1 million.
Moreover, the Government has said that under exceptional circumstances it may make direct loans to automotive companies. There should be no lower limit on such loans. (Paragraph 20) Companies need to survive this recession in order to help produce the low carbon vehicles of the future. Some will need help with their current range of products. We expect the Government to show a pragmatic approach to ensuring the future of the industry; its help needs to be swift, and it needs to deal with current problems. (Paragraph 22) 3. 4. The scheme in practice 5. The premium car sector and its supply chain is likely to be the source of many of the innovations which, used more widely, will aid the transition to low carbon vehicles.
The fact that the United Kingdom has the second largest premium car industry in the world should be seen as a key strategic strength. Jaguar Land Rover has already secured funding for its future technology investments; all that is under discussion is the Government’s guarantee. As at 7 July 2009 there has been no indication that there will be such a guarantee: we are astounded that it has taken so long to arrange this, particularly since the support needed is so limited. (Paragraph 30) It is clear that the Government has taken a number of sensible steps to make the AAP successful. It is working with a wide range of people within the industry, it has not forgotten the need to reach the supply chain, and it is trying to involve the banks 6. 26 in the scheme.
However, we cannot discount the industry’s complaints about the delays in agreeing support measures, and we are profoundly disappointed that to date not one single penny has been advanced through the scheme. We hope that this will change rapidly. (Paragraph 31) The Scrappage Scheme 7. Despite its relatively late introduction, there are encouraging signs that the Scrappage Scheme has been effective, and we welcome its success. (Paragraph 34) Automotive finance 8. Over twice as many people are employed in automotive retail as are employed in automotive manufacturing. We appreciate the difficulties in setting in place a scheme to support automotive finance.
However, we also note that the French Government already appears to have provided a €2 billion refinancing facility for automotive finance companies. Once again the Government has held out the possibility of action but has not yet delivered. We seek clarification of the Government’s intentions. (Paragraph 36) Short time working and Train to Gain 9. We accept that government financial support for short time working is not an integral part of the United Kingdom welfare system, and that help is forthcoming through Train to Gain. Nonetheless, we also note that some countries have increased the level of support they offer through their schemes, or are considering introducing such support.
If British industry is to remain competitive, it will need to retain skilled workers. The Government should be doing far more to help it do this. We do not believe the tax credit scheme is the way to support short time working. We believe there is scope for more ambitious and innovative approaches, like the ProAct scheme adopted by the Welsh Assembly Government. (Paragraph 43) Government support for the industry 10. It is important that the entire Government shares a strategic approach to the UK automotive industry. This means that matters such as taxation, environmental targets and support measures should be considered together to ensure they do not inadvertently conflict. Paragraph 46) The danger is that without a clear government strategy, and sufficient support, valuable skills and capacity will be lost to countries which more clearly demonstrate their readiness to support the industry. In some cases this will be as much about rhetoric and perception as about real levels of support, but the effect will be the same. (Paragraph 50) We believe the Government is committed to the future of the automotive industry in the United Kingdom. It has provided substantial assistance to the industry, and we welcome the fact that the Minister told us he was ready to intervene to help companies in difficulties. Nonetheless, the help given has been slower than in other 11. 12. 27 countries.
Worse still, there are perceptions that the Government does not have a coherent and supportive policy for the industry. This is not just a problem during the current economic difficulties; government support for the industry will determine its long term success. The Government must not only support individual companies, but be seen to support the industry as a whole, and act with more urgency and consistency than it has done so far. (Paragraph 51) 28 Formal Minutes Tuesday 7 July 2009 Members present: Peter Luff, in the Chair Mr Adrian Bailey Mr Brian Binley Michael Clapham Miss Julie Kirkbride Mr Lindsay Hoyle Lembit Opik Mr Anthony Wright Draft Report (The Automotive Industry in the UK), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph. Paragraphs 1 to 51 read and agreed to. Summary agreed to. Resolved, That the Report be the Ninth Report of the Committee to the House. Ordered, That the Chairman make the Report to the House. Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134. Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for printing with the Report. [Adjourned till Tuesday 14 July at 10. 00 am 29 Witnesses Monday 18 May 2009 Professor Richard Parry-Jones CBE, Chair, New Automotive Innovation and Growth Team Page Ev 1 Wednesday 20 May 2009
Mr David Smith, Chief Executive, Jaguar Land Rover, Mr Paul Everitt, Chief Executive, Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, and Mr Graham Smith, Senior Vice President, External Affairs, Toyota Motor Europe Mr Paul Williams, Chief Executive, Retail Motor Industry Federation Ev 9 Ev 23 Thursday 21 May 2009 Mr Chris Gately, Managing Director, Multipart Mrs Andrea Paver, Managing Director and Mr Denis Culloty, Chief Engineer, Leyland Trucks Limited, and Mr Steve Barfoot, UK Country Manager, PACCAR Finance International Limited Mr Mark Hughes, Executive Director, Economic Development, Northwest Development Agency Ev 29 Ev 35 Ev 42 Wednesday 10 June 2009
Mr Dave Osborne Unite National Officer for Vehicle Building and Automotive and Mr Roger Maddison, Unite National Officer for Motor Components, Unite the Union Mr Ian Lucas MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Jane Whewell Director, Automotive Sector and Mr Ian Gregory, Director, Automotive Sector, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Ev 46 Ev 51 30 List of written evidence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform Bentley Motors CBI Copart UK Finance and Leasing Association General Motors UK Ltd Greater London Authority Jaguar Land Rover Retail Motor Industry Federation (RMIF) Semta The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Limited (SMMT) Unite the Union Department for Business, Innovation & Skills Ev 64 Ev 71 Ev 74 Ev 75 Ev 77 Ev 78 Ev 83 Ev 85 Ev 87 Ev 88 Ev 89 Ev 93,100 Ev 103 31
List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament The reference number of the Government’s response to each Report is printed in brackets after the HC printing number. Session 2008–09 First Report Second Report? Energy policy: future challenges Pre-appointment hearing with the Chairman-elect of Ofcom, Dr Colette Bowe Work of the Committee in 2007-08 Regional development agencies and the Local Democracy, Econom