Speciality Steel UK

Lord Sarwar Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his new role, which is fast becoming that of a steel baron. As I said from these Benches during the passage of the nationalisation Bill—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, pointed out, focused on British Steel—Liberal Democrats recognise that national security, energy security and food security are all intertwined, and that steel is critical to our renewable sector, defence and national infrastructure.

In one sense, yesterday’s announcement adds yet another complication to the Government’s attempts to ensure that the UK has a viable and strategic steel industry. In another, it was perhaps inevitable, and gives the Government a chance to consider two sides of the steel industry at the same time.

My first focus is on the timeline and how the Speciality Steel UK part fits with other activities. In the Commons, in answer to the question from my honourable friend Daisy Cooper MP, the Secretary of State said that he expects the process for Speciality Steel UK to take between four and six months. Can the Minister update your Lordships’ House as to the timeline for British Steel and the valuation process that is under way? Can he tell us whether there is any crossover between the two or whether they are discrete processes? The Secretary of State set out the different scale of the task to rejuvenate British Steel—in fact, he implied that any involvement of the private sector would be at some time in the future. Can the Minister confirm the Government’s thinking around private sector involvement in British Steel and how it would affect attempts to get private sector involvement in Speciality Steel UK? Can he also confirm the scale of investment that Speciality Steel UK will need to make it an attractive investment for the private sector?

Additionally, how does all this affect Tata Steel in Wales? The Secretary of State said that he hopes British Steel will follow Tata and install electric arc technology. How does Tata, which despite government support is investing a great deal of its own money into electric arc, compete with a government-funded competitor —competing for raw material at the very least, but also markets?

Moneywise, in the Commons, the Secretary of State said that the cost of nationalising Speciality Steel UK will be met from existing budgets. He went on to remind the House of the huge sums involved, but it is quite clear that this pot is emptying fast. Can the Minister undertake to bring detailed costings to this House, covering valuations of both this asset and the British Steel asset, as soon as they are available?

Daisy Cooper MP also raised in the Commons the issue of Europe. The steel sector generally, and tariffs and carbon border taxes specifically, all hinge on our relationship with the European Union. Can the Minister agree that having a much closer relationship with the EU could make many of these issues much easier to deal with and iron out? Can he tell us when the Government will be making substantive moves to achieve this closer relationship?

As the Statement observes, the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, created the legacy that this Government inherited. Central to this legacy have been the structurally sky-high costs faced by this and other manufacturing industries. I know the Minister is new to his role, but I am sure that energy was one of the first things he was asked about when he took over. The Government have made some efforts to help some high energy users, but these bypass most manufacturers and, for those they affect, reductions are being cancelled out by other measures in the opposite direction happening at the same time. Can the Minister confirm and agree with me that, without new measures which substantially cut energy costs so that they are much closer to global competitors, it really does not matter who owns the steel industry because with costs like this the sector will always struggle to flourish?

I close by recognising the people working in the industry and their importance. They are vital; the UK needs their skills, and indeed needs many who have left the industry to come back. But these people need to know they have a future and that their industry has a future. The Government have made first steps in this, but there is a great deal to do. We on these Benches will support the Government where we can, to help pick up momentum and get this industry back on its feet.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Lord Sarwar) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions and serious consideration that the House has given to the future of Speciality Steel UK. I will come on to address some of the specific questions that both noble Lords have rightfully asked, but first I thank both noble Lords for mentioning the workforce and echo what they said. For the workforce, it is a time of particular anxiety. It is important that they know that, regardless of party politics, this House and the other place stand fully behind the fantastic workforce.

Before I get on to some of the detailed answers, it is important to clarify some of the facts on where we are and what the Secretary of State outlined yesterday. This is an important matter for the employees of the business, the communities surrounding its sites and the United Kingdom’s wider industrial capability. I therefore welcome the opportunity to clarify the Government’s position, explain the decision we have taken and set out the next steps.

Speciality Steel UK entered liquidation in August 2025. Since then, the independent court-appointed official receiver has been responsible for managing the liquidation process. A question was asked about how much that has cost to date. We have supported the official receiver with around £148 million to date, supporting staff and safety at the individual site. That funding has allowed the receiver to carry out his statutory duties. It has included maintenance of the site, as I said, and conducting a sale process for the business and its assets.

For more than 12 months, the Government have worked to facilitate a private sector solution, and the noble Lord is right to say that a private sector solution remains the first preference. As part of that process, the official receiver engaged with a number of parties interested in acquiring the business and its assets, and the party granted preferential bidder status by the official receiver subsequently sought government support in connection with its proposed acquisition of Speciality Steel. We engaged extensively with the bidder and its advisers, and considered the request in detail. To clarify, it was requesting upfront financial commitment from the Government. Following the work we did, we concluded we could not provide the support on the terms proposed.

This decision was not taken lightly. The Government carefully examined the proposal and explored whether an arrangement could be reached that would provide a sustainable basis for the future of the business, while offering appropriate protection for public money. Despite that extensive engagement, material concerns remained regarding the evidence supporting the proposed support package and the protections available for taxpayers.

I want to be really clear, because this is important: we are talking specifically about the financial support that was requested. That should not be interpreted as a wider judgment on the bidder itself or its other business activities, either here or elsewhere. Our responsibility was to assess the proposal before us, including whether it provided a suitably robust basis for intervention and the appropriate safeguards. Having considered those matters, we could not support the proposal on the terms put forward. However, that conclusion does not diminish the significance of Speciality Steel UK. The business occupies a unique place in the United Kingdom steel ecosystem. Its specialist capabilities have potential applications in advanced manufacturing, aerospace and defence. Therefore, it is of strategic importance. That is why the Government remain committed to the sites, the workforces, the local communities and the local economies that are impacted.

We believe, therefore, that the viable future options should be assessed properly before the range of possibilities is permanently narrowed. For that reason, the Government will engage with the official receiver’s sale process and develop a proposal for the public acquisition of Speciality Steel UK. Any engagement will respect the independence of the official receiver and its statutory responsibilities.

Developing a proposal does not remove the need for proper processes to be followed, nor does it prejudge the outcome of the work under way. The purpose of developing an acquisition proposal is to preserve control of the sites and maintain every option available while decisions are taken about their longer-term future.

Let me stress that public acquisition is not the endpoint and it is not the first preference. It would not in itself determine the permanent future of the business, its operations or its sites; rather, it would create the space required for detailed assessment of the available options. These include a sustainable future for Speciality Steel UK as a speciality steel-maker supporting advanced manufacturing sectors, the regeneration of the sites or a combination of the two. This Government will remain focused on engaging closely with the employees, the trade unions, the local communities, elected representatives, the mayor, industry experts and other interested parties. Again, I open that offer to noble Lords on all sides of the House too.

I recognise that noble Lords will want and expect proper safeguards for public money. They have that firm commitment from me and from the Secretary of State. All options carry significant costs—there is no point in pretending otherwise. The risks exist and significant costs exist. That includes the risk of immediate closure. We will develop our estimates as the work progresses. Again, I am happy to share those assessments as much as possible with noble Lords on all sides of the House.

I also recognise the desire for certainty, particularly among employees and their families. It would not be responsible to pre-empt the detailed assessment or suggest that decisions have already been taken where they have not, but equally it is important that potentially viable options are not lost by default. I believe the approach that the Government have set out yesterday and today strikes that right balance of giving reassurance to the workforce, of keeping every option on the table and making sure we have the back-up of a public acquisition option. That is the right and responsible course to take.

There were some specific questions that I have not addressed. I have already talked about the private sector preference being the first one. Secondly, we should accept that there is a global challenge around steel, not just a UK challenge. Thirdly, I recognise the challenge set out by both noble Lords that we have to drive down the cost of living and the cost of doing business as it relates to energy. That is of course of huge significance for us if we are going to make sure we protect our steel industry and other industries that are energy intensive. These are all considerations that are being made in advance of the Budget.

I noted that many questions from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, related to the Budget process. I imagine those are questions we will come back to as we get closer to, and arrive at, that Budget point. I also noted that he spoke about history and not repeating the mistakes of the past. All I would say is that he was very selective about which part of history he chose and which bits we do not want to repeat. There are other parts of our history that we do not want to repeat, and we need to learn lessons from them.

The noble Lord from the Liberal Democrats asked questions around finding longer-term private sector solutions. We will find those solutions only if we make the steel industry sustainable, if we get the energy crisis right, if we address the challenges around the broader cost of production, if we deliver the orders that are required for there to be manageable order books and a functioning business and if we back it up with the appropriate skills. The steel strategy is ambitious, but it is also deliverable, and we all have work to do to make sure that happens.

Let me repeat that I commit to work with noble Lords on all sides to make sure they are fully apprised of the situation as it develops. There is one final and slightly broader point about our relationship with the European Union, some of which will come from the UK-EU summit that we continue to work towards. There is also a wider lesson around the defensive and protection measures that the UK and the EU are grappling with in relation to their steel industries. The more the relevant Ministers and Governments across the continent work in lockstep on many of the same issues we are confronting together, the better it will be for our industry here in the UK and for steel industries across Europe.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his position; I look forward to quizzing him as someone from Sheffield and from a steel-making heritage. I will miss my interactions with his noble friend Lord Leong; I really enjoyed them and wish him well. I will make two points. First, we need a frictionless relationship with the EU, so whatever barriers and bureaucracy the Minister can take away in the reset with the European Union will be welcomed by these Benches.

Secondly, I will pick up on the point that my noble friend Lord Fox raised about people. Due to the unstable nature of the industry over the past couple of years, it has lost some skilled, experienced workers, both through redundancy and because some have sought stability elsewhere. Therefore, following my noble friend, I press the Minister on how we can bring back that skills base and how we can grow the next generation through apprenticeships. I would welcome responses to that people question; he rightly commented on it at the beginning, but I would like to press him further.

[Lord Sarwar (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his questions. Let me reassure him that my noble friend will continue to fact-check me on a regular basis in the absence of him answering questions directly.

The workforce is fundamental to this. We will of course make decisions based on what it means for production, GDP, growth and broader calculations, but for these communities—either those working directly at these sites or those relying on them for employment indirectly—this is their everyday life. Many of the sites, particularly Speciality Steel UK, are in some of the most deprived communities in the country. Therefore, it is important that we work right across government, including the Department for Education and the DWP, as well as with BIS colleagues, the local authority and the broader mayoral and regional authorities, to make sure that, where we can, we are protecting these jobs and provide reskilling opportunities.

To the noble Lord’s final point, we have to make sure that the next generation also feels that this is a sector in which they want to train and then work, because that too is very much a part of having a sustainable steel future for the UK.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his patience in dealing with some of the questions from opposition spokesmen—they were quite astonishing. I am old enough to go back to the Thatcher years. In 1980, she appointed Sir Ian MacGregor to run the British Steel Corporation and close down Redcar, Port Talbot, Consett, Corby, Shotton, Ebbw Vale and, in Scotland, Ravenscraig. Let us make sure that the Tories are never allowed to forget that. Would my noble friend consider arranging a little seminar, so that they can learn from history?

[Lord Sarwar (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his usually robust contribution. I gently tell him that, while he was here to witness what happened in 1980 and can therefore tell us the lessons that must be learned, I was born in 1983.

Young People in Scotland: Employment Opportunities

Lord Sarwar Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Employment Rights Act 2025 on employment opportunities for young people in Scotland.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Lord Sarwar) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have published a comprehensive assessment of the Employment Rights Act in consultation with experts. The assessment shows that the Act could benefit 18 million workers across the UK and could increase employment. Our analysis further shows that young workers stand to be amongst the biggest beneficiaries of these reforms. Scotland is also expected to benefit more significantly, with around 55% of workers projected to gain from the Act.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I begin by warmly welcoming the Minister to his first Question at the Dispatch Box. In the latest labour market trends published by the Scottish Government, the unemployment rate of those aged 16 and over in Scotland was estimated at 5.1%, up 1.4% over the year, and above the UK rate of 4.9%. We know that the Employment Rights Act will take effect over the coming months. The views of these Benches on the deficiencies in that legislation are well-known. What contingency measures are Ministers putting in place, should the Employment Rights Act lead to even higher levels of unemployment among young people in Scotland?

[Lord Sarwar (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question. He and I debated these issues in a very different Parliament not so long ago, and I am sure that neither of us imagined we would be debating in this Chamber today. As he knows, a lot of these responsibilities are devolved, so we have to make an assessment of the impact of the Employment Rights Act; but let us not forget that the Scottish Government are responsible for schools, high schools, colleges, universities, apprenticeships, the apprenticeship levy rates and so much more. Therefore, although we are confident that the Employment Rights Act will not have a detrimental impact on young workers, we need fundamental reform in Scotland in those other areas.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that numerous tax and regulation actions are undertaken by both the UK Government and the Scottish Government that have an impact on job prospects for young people in Scotland, yet both Governments operate separate, unconnected programmes in Scotland to address youth unemployment? Would it be better if the two Governments worked together to find ways of jointly attacking the problem of youth unemployment, and, given that the Minister has experience of both this House and the Scottish Parliament, is he not the right Minister to lead that initiative?

[Lord Sarwar (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. He can pay me all the compliments he likes—I will happily take them. Of course, on principle we should work together whenever it is in the national interest, and there will be different responsibilities of the Government here at Westminster and the Government in Scotland. For example, we have responsibility for the Employment Rights Act and the campaign to make work pay, along with increasing the national minimum wage for young people. We have the jobs guarantee scheme, and we have committed an additional £2.5 billion over the next three years to the youth guarantee scheme, as well as reforming the growth and skills levy. Of course, responsibility for how that levy is spent in Scotland is for the Scottish Government. Therefore, I accept the principle of the argument the noble Lord is making, and we stand ready to work with the Government in Scotland to deliver for Scotland’s amazing young people.

[Baroness MacLeod of Camusdarach (Lab)]

My Lords, the unemployment figures for young people in Scotland make pretty grim reading—the NEET figures are going up. In the West Highlands and Islands of Scotland, there are great employment opportunities, whether it is renewable energy, fishing, tourism or dry dock facilities. However, there is very little infrastructure, there are very few houses, and there seems to be an ignorance of the problems facing the area. Can my noble friend mobilise his department and other Whitehall departments and work, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has said, with the Scottish Government to make sure that those sins of omission are corrected?

[Lord Sarwar (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question and agree with her wholeheartedly. I repeat what I said to the noble Lord: we stand ready to work with the Scottish Government on these issues. I will give the example of an area that is of course of real importance to my noble friend: the Western Isles. There we have a particular challenge, with a ferry service that is not competent, meaning that there is loss of trade almost every week. Services are being taken away—for example, around our skills system—and resources are being taken away from the university based there and in the highlands. In addition, too many young people are being forced to leave the Western Isles because they cannot get adequate housing to bring up their young families. This shows that we need a joined-up approach, and the Government stand ready to do that. However, I again urge the Scottish Government to take much more action on all these issues, rather than undertaking stunts in other parts of the country such as the one they engaged in today.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his place. To some extent he has touched on this in his previous answer, but does he agree that the Scottish First Minister would be better placed dealing with practical priorities such as co-operating with the UK Government on issues such as youth unemployment, rather than engaging in performative pantomime politics such as meeting the leaders of Plaid Cymru and Sinn Féin today?

[Lord Sarwar (Lab)]

I emphasise again that of course, I and the First Minister of Scotland have a different view on the constitution of the UK and the constitution in Scotland. However, to be honest, the most meaningful thing the First Minister of Scotland, and indeed the First Minister of Wales and the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland, can do is deliver for their populations. When in Scotland we have rising youth unemployment, ever-longer NHS waiting lists and too many children leaving school without the opportunities they deserve, those are the issues the Scottish Government should be grappling with every day, rather than gathering in Cardiff to sign a piece of paper and perform a stunt, acting against the interests of the good people of Scotland.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Lord to his ministerial position; I think this House is greatly enhanced by people who served in the Scottish Parliament, personally, and I wish him luck in his role. The area where I live, the Scottish Borders, has the lowest average working wage, and we also have too high levels of outward migration of those in the workforce, including young people. Working across the border, businesses have to navigate both devolved and reserved legislation, and when Governments are not working together in an area such as the Scottish Borders, that exacerbates the problem rather than resolves it. What initiatives can the Minister take with his colleagues here to ensure that in the Border area, cross-border work is enhanced rather than diminished?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sarwar (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. The Borderlands Inclusive Growth Deal is a good example of local authorities, the Scottish Government and the UK Government working together to drive investment into the Borderlands area—exports out and investments in—to create more opportunities. Let me emphasise again: in far too many parts of Scotland, young people are forced to leave because there is no access to local skills, well-paid local jobs or local housing. Many of those young people leave and never go back, and that is unfair for far too many parts of our country.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, the Interministerial Group for Business and Industry last met on 3 February by videophone. The communique lays out the four items that were discussed, which did not include this very important area. Will the Minister, whom I welcome to his position, tell us when the interministerial group will meet again and whether he will undertake to make sure that this issue is on the list of items to be discussed when it does?

[Lord Sarwar (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for his question. We were due to meet last week, but, sadly, Ministers in the devolved Administrations had to rearrange. I look forward to meeting very soon, and I will ensure that youth unemployment is high up the agenda.

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, as ACAS research has shown, commercial and competitive success in delivering job opportunities is much more likely to be achieved in workplaces where people feel valued and respected and their voice can be heard—key objectives being delivered by the Employment Relations Act, in Scotland as in England and Wales?

[Lord Sarwar (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend. Let me again demonstrate how important these reforms are. In April 2026, the Government strengthened statutory sick pay, introduced day-one rights to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave, and launched the Fair Work Agency. Further measures will be delivered in phases through 2026 and 2027, giving businesses and workers time to prepare. Let me emphasise a point I have not had a chance to make so far. The significant rise in the national minimum wage for young people is good, I believe, for employers and workplaces and for employees. I think it is perfectly fair that if a person is doing the same work, they should rightly expect to have the same pay.

[Lord Jack of Courance (Con)]

I welcome the Minister to his place. I know him well and I have done business with him in the past, and he is very welcome in this House. Does he agree that increasing taxes is a drag not only on job creation but also on growth?

[Lord Sarwar (Lab)]

Let me first emphasise that that was political business in the past, in case I get in trouble with the relevant authorities about my entry in the register of interests. Of course, you have to look at all these areas with the right balance to make sure we have the right fiscal arrangements in place, the right levels of pay and the right conditions. We also have to make sure that there is a more joined-up approach. To give an example, it is right that we increase the pay for young people—most disproportionately, young people working, for example, in the hospitality and retail sector; but if we are honest, nor is there a balanced or level playing field in our business rate system for the retail and hospitality sector.

Parcel Delivery Services

Lord Sarwar Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Lord Sarwar) (Lab) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, thank you first of all for the very kind comments. I am pleased to respond to this Question for Short Debate as part of my maiden speech. I thank the noble Lord for bringing forward this important debate. I also start with an apology that it will not get the full and detailed response it deserves, given that it is a maiden speech. But I make both a firm commitment to meet the noble Lord and the commitment he asked for to look at all the issues so that we give the people of this country the postal service they need and deserve.

With noble Lords’ permission, I want to share some reflections before responding directly to the issues raised. I cannot help but think about the journey that got me to this place and the many, many people who have supported me along the way. It feels pretty surreal standing to make my third career maiden speech in a third Chamber. My first was in the House of Commons 16 years ago, my second in the Scottish Parliament 10 years ago, and today in the House of Lords. At 43 years old, it feels like I am living my life in fast forward.

There is nothing I could have done in my life if it was not for the great people of Glasgow. It is a city that raised me, that shaped me, that taught me my values and gave me my passion for social justice. But it is also a city that taught me not to be afraid to do difficult things: as a teenager, campaigning to save the Govan shipyard; as a young adult, being an NHS dentist in the area with the poorest dental health record in western Europe; as a relatively new Member of Parliament, becoming the deputy leader of the Scottish Labour Party and helping lead the campaign for Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom; throughout my time in the Commons, campaigning for the recognition of a Palestinian state, a proud achievement of this Labour Government; and as shadow Health Secretary in Scotland, working with whistleblowers and grieving families to expose the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital scandal. I repeat a promise that I made to all those families: I may have moved to a different Chamber, but I will continue to stand with them until they get the truth and the justice they deserve.

In 2021, I had the honour of being elected to lead my party in Scotland with just 10 weeks to go before an election. Hollowed out, divided, skint—a Scottish term, for those who do not know it—and with just one MP, we were viewed as the drag on the UK Labour Party’s chances of winning an election. I will be for ever proud that three years later Scotland led the way in changing the Government and electing a UK Labour Government, going from one MP to 37 MPs.

There have no doubt been many achievements in the first two years of this Labour Government, but we must be honest that, for many, we did not live up to their early expectations, and they were keen to deliver that message in May. I remain heartsore at the outcome of the Scottish elections, not because of what it meant for me—you learn to develop a thick skin in the Scottish Labour Party—but because of what it means for my fellow Scots. Scotland needs a new Government and new politicians who are willing to confront the big challenges. It needs an NHS that is there when you need it, an education and skills system that guarantees opportunities for every young person, an economy that backs innovation and entrepreneurship and a politics that puts place before parties so that every part of our great country can flourish. To my colleagues and friends in the Scottish Labour Party, note that I will always be cheering you on and working for your success. To whoever my successor is, know that you will always have my unequivocal support in public and, as a former leader, my advice in private.

I have been fortunate to have so many political friends and supporters over the years—they are too many to name individually, but they know who they are and I thank them dearly. But every politician also knows that you can do nothing without your staff team. Over the years, I have been supported by so many hard-working, committed and incredible people, not least the brilliant Kate Watson. She, and they, will always be family.

Speaking of family, I could not do it without mine. I thank them for their love, patience and understanding and, most of all, for making sure that my feet are, and always will be, firmly on the ground. I hope that I have done you a little proud. I am certainly proud of each and every single one of you.

I am joined in the Gallery today by my mother and father, faces that I know are well known to many noble Lords, because, yes, I may have been the first person of Muslim heritage to lead a major political party in the UK, but I was certainly not its first Muslim MP. That achievement belongs to my father. Almost 30 years after his election as the Labour MP for Glasgow Govan, it is truly humbling for me to be standing here addressing what he would call the other place. I imagine that in some ways this will feel like a bit of a homecoming for him. Many noble Lords served with him and so have known me from a very young age, but let me reassure them that, while I have aged, they have not.

I look around the Chamber and see many who have supported, encouraged, advised, consoled and even, on rare occasions, rebuked me over the years. I am sure that will continue. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for remembering one person in particular, Baroness Meta Ramsey, who remains in our hearts today.

That brings me to the here and now and why I answered the call to serve. I played my part in helping the Labour Party succeed at the last general election, but our new Prime Minister must succeed, this Government must succeed and, most importantly of all, our country must succeed. I am determined to play my part in making that happen. As the late, great John Smith once said:

“The opportunity to serve … is all we ask”.


I could not turn that opportunity down.

But there is also, in my view, a bigger fight that cannot I walk away from and which I am determined to play my part in. That is the fight for the heart and soul of our nation. It is about who we are as a people and as a country. For me, that goes beyond the usual mainstream political divide. Who are we as a country? Do we continue to look out for and love our neighbour or do we treat them with suspicion? Are we a country that succumbs to the politics of division and hate or are we going to make sure that we have a country and a politics that believes in unity and hope? That is the generational challenge for all of us and one that I hope we overcome.

It is no secret that I have expressed public views on this place before. I, alongside a certain former Mayor of Greater Manchester, now the Prime Minister, advocated for reform of this institution. I reassure noble Lords that I did so questioning the principle, not the purpose or the people. I continue to support a more democratic and representative upper Chamber, a senate of the nations and regions.

I am deeply honoured to have been asked by the Prime Minister to serve as the UK’s Minister of State for Trade, with a clear mission and objective to make the UK the most connected economy in the world. That will be measured in maximising exports going out of the UK and investments coming into the UK and in making sure that good growth is felt in every postcode, every region and every nation.

In the closing moments, let me make sure that I also address some of the challenges raised in the Question. We have greater economic insecurity than perhaps ever before, and I think this country has to demonstrate trade and economic leadership. That means building more partnerships and embracing a more interconnected world rather than having over-protectionism in this country or, indeed, across the globe. We can see many of the challenges of the new economy in our postal delivery service. Our economy is changing, and habits are changing. We are now sending fewer letters than ever before, but we are sending and receiving more parcels than ever before, with 4.2 billion items sent in the last year alone. We have the rise of new online giants such as Amazon, eBay and AO, to name a few. That is putting more pressure on our SMEs and businesses, and how do they compete?

People have a lot more demands of what they expect from a quality service in postal deliveries. Yes, satisfaction is relatively high, but noble Lords are right to say that the consistency of that service and its handling of complaints is nowhere near good enough. The Minister in the other place has met Ofcom and businesses to make known to them that she is not content with that performance so far. I say again that I am happy to meet individually any noble Lord who has a care about this issue and I am happy to robustly challenge Ofcom and the businesses related to postal delivery services to make sure that they live up to people’s expectation.

In closing, it is an honour to be here. I thank the Whips for making sure I get to work here straightaway, and I look forward to working with all noble Lords to deliver for all the great people of this great country.