Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
At the end of a long day, let me express my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for providing us with this time to debate the supplementary estimates and the priorities of the Department for Business and Trade.
I rise to open this debate and simply make three broad points. This is an important debate because, of all of the supplementary estimates that have been laid before the House this afternoon, the Department for Business and Trade has had by far and away the most significant increase. Day-to-day spending has been increased by some £360 million, which is a rise of almost 18%. Investment spending has risen by £626 million, which is a 41% rise. Those are significant sums, so I pose the following questions to the Ministers. First, are these increases justified? Secondly, is the Department spending its money on the right priorities, given what we have heard from the business community? Thirdly, I want to underline this question about why there is not more significant support for small business, which is suffering what our Committee has found to be pandemic-style pressures but without a pandemic-style support package in place.
Let me start with the significant increases in the Department’s supplementary estimates. Some £375 million has been provisioned extra to support British Steel. That takes the total support that this House has agreed under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 to about £710 million. That is a significant sum. I think it has broad cross-party support. Certainly, the House did not divide when we were recalled for that unusual hearing on a Saturday to agree to the passing of that Act. None the less, there is one significant question that we have to ask this afternoon: where is the steel strategy to go with the extra money that the House is being asked to agree?
When representatives from Tata Steel came before our Committee just a couple of weeks ago, they were very clear that there are now just eight weeks to save the steel industry in this country. Therefore, having passed that Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act, and having been asked to agree this extra money, the House now has to ask the Minister today where that steel strategy is. As we know, a wave of subsidised Chinese steel is about to land on our shores. The United States has put up significant defences. The European Union has put up significant defences. We had significant defences, but they are about to come down in June. Industry is sending a message loudly and clearly to the Government that, unless they act and unless new defences and a steel strategy are put in place, we are looking at the end of the steel industry in this country. Thousands of jobs will go, along with a sovereign capability, which as a country we simply cannot afford to happen.
I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain how, if the House is to agree the spending, we are actually going to make sure that that money is not wasted, because there will be further policy measures in place to ensure that we do not lose our steel industry in the weeks ahead.
That takes me to the Post Office. Post Office provisions for the Horizon scandal and the payouts have now risen to about £1.2 billion. Our Committee has consistently criticised Governments of all stripes for not paying out the money to those victims much faster. The Committee has now agreed a further report on measures, which we think Ministers should take in order to ensure that justice is genuinely delivered to all of the victims of this scandal. That report will be published in a few days’ time. The House is being asked to agree this increase in the provision to £1.2 billion, yet the question we have for Ministers is this: where is the provision that Fujitsu is supposed to be making? After all, the Fujitsu system was at least half the cause of this scandal.
We now think that the total cost of the Horizon scandal, when we add in the legal costs, will be something like £2 billion, yet when we asked the head of Fujitsu what provision he had made for contributing to that bill, the answer was zero. When we followed up with the auditors, they confirmed that the directors had acted within the law because the Government had not yet made any demands on Fujitsu for the money that should come back from that company in order to help fund it. Just to add insult to injury, this is a company that has taken a grand total of £362 million in new contracts over the past year alone. It promised us a moratorium on bidding for new contracts, but that moratorium turned out not to be real and was merely a press stunt.
Why are we not asking for more money from Fujitsu, so that we do not have to put up these provisions of £1.2 billion? I would be grateful if the Minister could answer that question.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I have enjoyed an interesting few months on the Committee so far. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is perplexing that we do not have any understanding as to why there is not more pressure being put on Fujitsu to come up with a figure? Fujitsu keeps saying that it is waiting for the outcome of the inquiry, but it has made a commitment and we would expect some kind of provision to be made to reflect that.
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The chief executive of Fujitsu came before the Committee to say that Fujitsu did indeed have a moral obligation to make a contribution. That is why we were so surprised when earlier this year, when we asked for him to return, he said that no provision had yet been made. For a company that is making hundreds of millions of pounds out of British taxpayers, it is simply egregious that it has not offered to pay, but it is also wrong that Ministers have not demanded that it pays up, and pays up quickly.
I have touched on a couple of the significant increases in the estimates. There are two more points I want to make in the time available. The second broad point is the question of whether the money that the Department for Business and Trade is asking us to approve is in line with business priorities. As a Committee, we spend a lot of time listening to the business community, and we set out priorities based on what the businesses we talk to when we travel the country think we should be focused on. On our last national road trip we visited seven cities and did many roundtables on that tour. Last year we had 1,000 witnesses appear before the Committee—three quarters in private and a quarter in public—and we received 168 bits of evidence as we set out priorities for the future.
We heard very clearly that what business is looking for is far more certainty about the investment environment for the years ahead. Businesses want a better return on investment. For that, they need energy costs and business rates to come down, and they need the skills system to be far more flexible and available. Critically, they need much better access to finance so that we can mobilise capital on a different scale. Trade deals need to become a gateway to increasing exports. Finally, they are asking for a lot more coherence in regulation. Right now people are being smothered in red tape, often because one Department is not talking to another.
As we look at those priorities and at the estimates in front of us, we see that certainty has improved. The spring statement was a step forward, and the Chancellor has increased her headroom significantly. That definitely takes risk out of the investment environment. But there is nothing in these supplementary estimates about driving down energy costs. There is nothing about driving down business rates. There is nothing about making the skills system better financed and more available, in particular to small business.
Where there is progress is in the extra £200 million for the British Business Bank and the £50 million for the growth guarantee scheme. That is significant, but it is probably not quite enough. Indeed, the evidence we have received suggests that the market for loan guarantees is probably about £2 billion bigger than the Government have provided for. If we want small and big business to have access to scale-up finance in particular, we need to make sure that the British Business Bank has a much bigger loan guarantee scheme available.
Finally, there was nothing in the estimates to roll back the very deep cuts to export support. At a time when we have basically finished signing the free trade agreements that are available to us as a country, it is surprising to the Committee that export support staff are being cut so aggressively. If we want to make the most of these new opportunities and new free trade deals, we would have thought that increasing export support would be a Government priority.
My final point is about the emergency facing small business. Right now, as I said in my introductory remarks, small business tells us that it is facing pandemic levels of pressure without a pandemic-style support package. Labour costs have gone up. As we know, the national minimum wage has gone up, which in my view is a good thing, and the Employment Rights Act 2025, which will improve rights, is coming through. That is also a good thing. But when we add on the national insurance contributions, we must accept that labour costs will rise. That means that labour has got to become more productive, and that the skills system has got to become better available to small businesses. But when we add to that rising energy costs—so much higher; perhaps 50% bigger than before the covid crisis—the lack of regulation in third-party intermediaries, the increases in business rates, the costs from crime, the organised crime takeover of the high street, late payments and a lack of access to procurement, we see the crisis that small business now confronts.
Those are the priorities where we would have liked to have seen more action in the supplementary estimate. They will certainly be a focus of the Committee’s scrutiny work over the course of the next year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
I thank everyone who has participated in today’s debate. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) for opening the debate, as well as for his work as Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, and the members of that Committee who have spoken in today and produced a number of reports in this Parliament. I have very much enjoyed reading those reports, and they have been drawn on extensively during this debate. Members have made some incredibly important and pertinent speeches, and in the time available, I will try to trot through some of the answers at pace. Forgive me in advance if I do not manage to respond to everyone: I am happy to write and fill in any detail that might be missing afterwards.
I will start with the overarching strategy of the Department and why it has produced these estimates. The Department has reset our programme of spend around our growth mission and our industrial strategy. Our major investments in key sectors, combined with efforts to attract private capital, will ensure that taxpayers’ money is used effectively. At the same time, we are ensuring that the right resources are going into delivering our small business plan, creating the right conditions for small businesses to grow. I will say more on that shortly, as I know that many Members are concerned about small businesses.
I also need to explain, as it was mentioned by several Members, the rationale behind the in-year budget increase. It is primarily for three activities—British Steel, the Post Office and the British Business Bank. There has been a £1.351 billion increase in the annual managed expenditure budget, recognising that additional provisions are needed for postmaster compensation. That covers funding for the capture redress scheme, and for redress to family members of postmasters impacted by Horizon. There is a £626 million increase in capital department expenditure limits, largely for two reserve claims. The first is £375 million of funding for the Department’s support for British Steel, and the second is £200 million for growth sector businesses via the British Business Bank, to help more firms to scale up and become home-grown success stories. The reserve claim will ensure that we do not unnecessarily restrict the bank.
The shadow Minister queried why the Department is coming back with estimates, as it also did last year. Fundamentally, that is partly built into the structure of the British Business Bank. In order to provide the bank with the level of in-year flexibility that it needs to work with fund managers and draw down investment in businesses, it is important that the bank is not restricted at the outset and that we do not overcompensate or undercompensate the bank. That is one of the primary reasons why the Department is an outlier among the estimates. It is actually a sign of a well-functioning Department and a very well-functioning element of the British Business Bank.
I turn to some of the specific items. Given the scale of the support for the steel industry, I shall start there. It was raised by the Chair of the Select Committee and many other Members. Our steel industry is of course strategically important as part of British heavy industry, supporting the UK’s industrial base, our construction sector and our national and economic security, as we heard in the earlier estimates debate on the Ministry of Defence. Transforming the steel sector is essential for securing a competitive, modern and sustainable industrial base, ensuring the UK can meet its long-term net zero commitments while maintaining critical domestic capability.
Our commitment to the sector is evident in the intervention we made in April last year at Scunthorpe to ensure uninterrupted steel production and avoid the permanent and disorderly closure of the UK’s last operating blast furnaces, the Queen Anne and the Queen Bess in Scunthorpe. Government officials are continuing to provide on-site support in Scunthorpe, ensuring uninterrupted domestic steel production and carefully monitoring the use of taxpayer funds.
Several hon. Members mentioned the steel strategy, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). We have a commitment to publish the strategy early in 2026. We had hoped to publish it before Christmas but we thought it best to publish it alongside the trade measures following changes in trade arrangements. We have worked carefully with the industry, UK Steel and the trade unions, and I hope that we will bring the proposals on trade and on the steel strategy to the House in a very short time.
I commend the management, the trade unions and the workforce at Scunthorpe on their diligence in this period. In difficult circumstances, they have achieved an excellent health and safety performance in stabilising operations. I also commend the commercial team at Scunthorpe for their high-speed rail order from Turkey. I think we can all take great pleasure in steel exports from the UK to Turkey. The shadow Minister was concerned that the Government did not have the know-how to support the industry. I can tell him that, having worked for 29 years in the industry myself, I am exercising very careful oversight of the production and operational activities of British Steel.
Several Members queried the numbers. To date, the Government have spent approximately £370 million on support for British Steel, covering items such as raw materials, salaries and unpaid bills. I understand the concern, but I note that that is still less than half the amount that the previous Government spent last time British Steel was in great difficulties. They simply flipped the business out to Greybull, a company that could not even run Rileys snooker halls without Rileys going into administration. This Government are developing a steel strategy, and planning to ensure that we maintain our ironmaking capacity at Scunthorpe as well.
More broadly, the Government are committed to providing up to £2.5 billon to support the UK steel industry. Funding and financing for steel companies is being delivered via the National Wealth Fund and direct support, including an additional £500 million grant for Tata Steel at Port Talbot and support for the official receiver’s sale process for Speciality Steel’s UK sites in Rotherham and Stocksbridge. Separately, the Government have committed an additional £420 million to new investment in Sheffield Forgemasters to expand capacity further as a direct result of the AUKUS submarine deal, bringing our total investment in Forgemasters to over £1.3 billion.
That was the first item; the second is the Post Office. I should begin by acknowledging the sub-postmasters who were impacted by the Horizon scandal, and, again, thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North and the members of his Committee for their support and their challenges on these issues. The Government welcome that scrutiny. My right hon. Friend said that the Committee would publish a new report in the coming days, and we stand ready to review and respond to it.
I can confirm that we have now paid redress to more than 11,300 postmasters and made redress payments of £1.2 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and the Chair of the Committee were concerned about Fujitsu, as am I. Fujitsu has accepted that it bears a moral responsibility for what has happened, and has expressed its willingness to contribute financially. Let me make it clear that Fujitsu will have to pay. As for the amount that it will have to pay, it is important for the inquiry to complete its work and publish all the volumes of its report so that we can establish the level of compensation.
In respect of small business support, a number of issues were raised in connection with energy efficiency and energy costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury mentioned the British industrial competitiveness scheme. There are a number of other kinds of support for energy efficiency in small businesses, but I have already committed myself, at the Dispatch Box, to looking further at what can be done in that regard. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) asked what we could do for Laura. I would direct Laura towards our plan for small businesses, which includes legislation on late payments, a business growth service and tailored support for high streets, which, hopefully, she will find helpful.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
We are seeing fantastic and significant investment and regeneration in our city centre in Derby, but it still bears the scars of 14 years of austerity and neglect. Will the Minister tell us a bit more about how the Government are helping businesses to grow?
Chris McDonald
Look out for our plan for high streets, which will be published shortly.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) mentioned the gas-intensive nature of ceramics businesses. I am aware of that, and am looking at it very carefully.
I hope that I have been able to trot through some of the main issues. I now want to leave some time for the Chair of the Committee to make some concluding remarks.