Stellantis Luton
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the announcement by Stellantis yesterday on the future of its manufacturing sites in the United Kingdom.
I know that yesterday was a dark day for Luton. This is an iconic plant powered by a talented workforce. There are very few people in the town who do not know someone who works at the site. I wish to outline the steps that the Government have taken to try to prevent this outcome, and how we are going to support the industry and the area going forward.
The Transport Secretary and I found out about the challenges of this site just 10 days after the election. The global chief executive officer told us that he felt extremely frustrated by the lack of action from the previous Government, which meant that his desire was to close the Luton plant. Since then, we have been involved in intense negotiations with the company to try to find a way to keep the site open. Following these initial meetings, in July of this year the company announced its intention to conduct a review of its operations in response to the significant pressures that it was facing in key markets. Following the review, the company set out plans on Tuesday, which will see manufacturing at the two current Stellantis plants consolidated into a single location.
We were, and are, aware that Stellantis has significant excess capacity across Europe. The company’s talk of efficiency and investment elsewhere will of course be positive for its bottom line, but that will come as no comfort to the workers affected.
For more than a century, Vauxhall as a brand has been synonymous with Luton, and we are bitterly disappointed to hear that this relationship looks likely to end. Our No. 1 priority is the people of Luton, who will of course be devastated by this decision. News such as this rips through the heart of communities, sending shock waves beyond those immediately impacted—through their families, their communities and the businesses that they support. I grew up in a car community and know what it is like when half the street work at the same site.
We have asked the company to urgently share its full plans with us and to work with the Government, so that every single worker who is impacted receives the support they deserve. The Department for Work and Pensions stands ready to help anyone affected with a rapid response service designed exactly for these kinds of scenarios. It provides vital support and advice to both employers and their employees facing redundancy.
I want the House to be aware that we have done everything we possibly can to prevent this closure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I met Stellantis many times over the summer and again on Tuesday morning to discuss the situation and the acute pressures that the company is facing. We have worked hard to find a solution that would support the business and ensure that people kept their jobs, and we confirmed in writing that we were willing to consider any solution put forward.
However, despite our best efforts, we have been forced to accept that this is ultimately a commercial decision by Stellantis as it responds to wider challenges within the sector. And I will be frank with hon. Members: these challenges are not confined to any one company. Car manufacturers around the world are battling with increased costs, supply chain issues and changing consumer demand in a highly competitive, fast-evolving market. Hon. Members will know that last week Ford also announced 800 job losses in the UK over the next three years as part of a major restructuring programme across the whole of Europe. Many of the challenges faced by our car manufacturers are global in nature and they cannot be resolved by UK Government intervention alone.
Although this announcement is not what we wanted or what we worked towards, we must not mischaracterise this. It categorically does not signal a retreat by Stellantis from the UK. The plans announced by the company will also see it investing £50 million as it consolidates manufacturing at its Ellesmere Port plant in Cheshire. Hon. Members will know that Ellesmere Port is the UK’s first all-battery electric vehicle plant, and Stellantis’s decision to bring production of the Vivaro electric van to there is welcome. We will of course continue to work closely with the company on next steps of the consolidation process, including the proposal to offer affected workers a relocation package to take up roles at Ellesmere Port. The investments being made at Ellesmere Port and elsewhere demonstrate that there are real opportunities for UK manufacturing as part of the move to zero emission vehicles, but the transition has to be properly managed. That requires a Government who are on the pitch—something that the car industry finally has in this Government.
The Government are determined to support automotive companies as they revamp their production lines, adjust their business plans, and develop the technology needed for the next generation of zero emission vehicles. These cars and vans are greener, cleaner and essential to our net zero ambitions. Roughly 30% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions come from cars, vans and lorries. To tackle that, and wean our country off imported fossil fuels, we need zero emission vehicles, but the Government are resolute that the transition must be done in partnership between Government, industry and of course consumers. That is why the Secretary of State for Transport and I are listening closely to the concerns of the automotive industry and the wider sector about the transition to electric vehicles, and about the Conservative party’s zero emission vehicle mandate.
We held a roundtable earlier this month to hear directly from major automotive companies, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the charging sector, and in response we will shortly fast-track a consultation on our manifesto commitment to ending the sales of new pure petrol and diesel cars by 2030. We will use that consultation to engage with industry on the previous Government’s ZEV transition mandate, and the flexibilities in it, and we will welcome the industry’s feedback as we move forwards. We want to do everything that we can, together with industry, to secure further investment in the British automotive sector, now and over the long term. That is why in the Budget the Chancellor committed £2 billion to research and development and capital funding to support the zero emission vehicle manufacturing sector and supply chain.
Also, our industrial strategy will give the automotive sector the certainty that it deserves, and will send a clear signal to global boardrooms that the Government are in this for the long term. We want to invest alongside them, create a policy environment that allows them to prosper, and help them to do what they do best: bringing good jobs to every part of this country. Through the national wealth fund, we are unlocking billions in private investment in new green infrastructure, including gigafactories, and supporting growth and job creation—not just in the automotive sector, but in the wider economy. We are working with investors to build a globally competitive electric vehicle supply chain in the UK, and so are laying the foundations for growth over the long term.
The closure of the Luton plant by Stellantis is a bitter blow to our car industry, to Luton, and to the workers who made Vauxhall a world-class brand, producing world-class cars and vans, but we must not lose sight of the fact that those vehicles will continue to be designed and built here in the UK, at Ellesmere Port. That matters to me, and it matters to the Government. When I say that decarbonisation must not mean deindustrialisation, I mean it. Winning the race to net zero and having a world-leading automotive sector must go hand in hand. We must never undermine the transition, as the previous Government did, but we will be pragmatic in ensuring that regulation and incentives are working as they should. Contrived cultures wars are not what the industry needs; instead, it needs a partner in Government ready to look at the practical solutions that are necessary. We stand ready to do that, and I commend this statement to the House.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. This is a sad day for the 1,100 workers at the Luton Vauxhall factory, and our thoughts are first and foremost with them and their families. They are the most recent custodians in a long history that goes back to 1905, when their factory opened its doors for the first time. Luton-built white vans are icons of British business, representing to many the hard graft and skill of millions of traders, the self-employed and small businesses across this country.
The Opposition stand by those hard-working people. We are on the side of the plant workers, because we know the value of skilled work and the transformative power of British business. The closure of the Luton plant, I fear, is just a down payment on the jobs that will be lost through this Government’s relentless attacks on industry, their neglect of the realities of business, and their failure to meet their promise not to raise taxes. The Government owe it to the plant’s workers to at least be honest. This decision is the direct result of a Government policy that is simply unworkable for industry. Stellantis told us as much when it said that the decision was
“made within the context of the… ZEV mandate”.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said,
“the UK situation is particularly acute with arguably the toughest targets and most accelerated timeline in the world,”
and that
“unsustainable business costs undermine UK industry”.
The Government’s policy on zero emission vehicles is a jobs killer. They say they have been talking since July, so why this panicked U-turn today, when it is already too late? The last Government acknowledged that the previous vehicle mandate was too stringent. We took the decision to push it back, recognising the impact that it would have on industry. We listened to Unite the union on this. The Secretary of State’s party unilaterally reversed those changes and brought the deadline forward to 2030. Instead of listening to Unite, he listened to the Member for climate central, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband).
Even today, the Secretary of State speaks of ending the sale of new purely petrol and diesel cars by 2030. He tried to slip a subtle change in there, the consequences of which are significant. I welcome the fact that, for once, this Government have listened to business, but he appears to be misleading business at the same time. Can he explain exactly what his policy is? As we see today, there are real costs to these targets. Instead of having the courage to recognise that he was wrong, his solution appears to be yet another consultation, which is yet to take place. How many automotive businesses has the Secretary of State spoken to about the targets? In any of his conversations with Stellantis, did it ask him at any point to remove the fines? Has he met the right hon. Member for Doncaster North to entreat him to row back from his ideological pursuit of domestic targets, which ignores the fact British jobs are being exported to more carbon-intensive economies?
Most of all, we must not ignore the elephant in the room: the timing of the decision. It follows a Budget that declared war on business, with a triple whammy of tax rises that remove incentives for growth and investment; a £25 billion jobs tax, which has left boardrooms across the country putting recruitment and pay rises on hold; and an Employment Rights Bill that the Secretary of State wrote while hand in hand with his union paymasters, which is already deterring businesses from hiring in Britain.
Businesses are ringing the alarm bells. The CBI, the British Retail Consortium, UKHospitality and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders have all said that the pressures on business are too much to swallow. In open letter after open letter, statement after statement, they say that Labour is not on their side. It lied about its plans. It is attacking working people, and now it is attacking the vans that they go to work in. The businessmen and women who gave Labour the benefit of the doubt are regretting it. When will the Secretary of State listen? When will his Government abandon their attack on British business? Will he lead the charge to change course? Why will he not suspend the fines and targets that have led to today’s tragedy?
Jonathan Reynolds
That is the single most dishonest statement I have ever heard in my time in this House.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw that comment.
Jonathan Reynolds
Mr Speaker, I would like to clarify some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. The ZEV mandate policy is—[Interruption.]
Jonathan Reynolds
The ZEV mandate policy that the shadow Minister mentioned is a policy of the previous Government, as he is aware. The changes that the previous Government made were not to the ZEV mandate. They were not pragmatic about it. They changed the destination and kept the fines, the ramp-up and the threshold exactly the same. They allowed no flexibility or pragmatism in how the policy operated, but still undermined the transition, leading to a massive reduction in consumer confidence. He asks whether I have talked to industry. I was the guest speaker at the SMMT dinner last night; 1,000 people were there, from every bit of the automotive sector. They are absolutely clear: they support the destination; it is how the previous Conservative Government’s policy operates that is causing them the problems. As I said in the statement, as he would know if he was listening, or had read it in advance, 10 days into this Government, we were told that the plant was likely to close.
Labour has acted with pragmatism; we have been willing to look at any part of the policy to prevent this outcome. The simple truth was that it was too late, after 14 years of failure, to put this right. I say to the hon. Gentleman with all politeness that he is out of touch with industry, with workers, and even with what the previous Conservative Government did, and that speaks for itself.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
This is indeed a hard day for Luton. I welcome what the Secretary of State shared with the House, and the review of the zero emission mandate that he announced. In that review, I hope that he looks again at the perversities of the regime that he inherited, which could involve petrol engine makers in this country transferring credits to companies like Elon Musk’s Tesla, and to Chinese EV makers. If we really want to ensure a level playing field, why do we not reverse the decision of the last Secretary of State, follow the EU Commission and launch anti-subsidy investigations into Chinese EV makers? The Trade Remedies Authority is ready to go—it just needs the Secretary of State to give the green light.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee, including for the exchanges that we had in the Committee evidence session yesterday. He is right that because of the position we inherited—the issues with the flexibilities in the policy and the fact that no domestic producer is on track—the transfer he described is effectively the problem. That is why I say that decarbonisation cannot mean deindustrialisation. It is precisely what we inherited that we are critiquing. We do not want to undermine the transition in the way the previous Prime Minister did—anyone in industry in the sector could tell Conservative Members how disastrous that was—but we need to give a breathing space, and ensure that the policy has none of the perverse incentives that he described.
On subsidies, the Trade Remedies Authority and the potential response from the UK, we have to bear in mind two things. First, under the system that we inherited, industry makes the application. I have powers to do that, as Secretary of State, but they have never been used, to my knowledge. Secondly, we must remember that the UK automotive sector is a world-class, export-led sector. If we were to go down any kind of protectionist route on principle, we would have to bear in mind what it would mean for the markets we sell vehicles into. If we sell 80% of our product abroad, we have to consider the international export position, alongside the domestic market position. If industry makes that request, of course that request will be followed up, in accordance with the way the system operates.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance copy of his statement. Yesterday, like the Secretary of State, I attended the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders annual dinner, and I greatly appreciated the opportunity to hear directly from such an important sector for the British economy. UK car manufacturing brings billions of pounds into our economy. It employs hundreds of thousands of people directly, and many more thousands across its supply chain. It is at the forefront of the green transition, and of making transport sustainable for the future via electric vehicles. Most importantly, the industry is always willing to be frank with me and with other politicians; it reaffirmed to me that it sees major hurdles on the horizon, and the closure of Vauxhall’s 100-year-old factory in Luton is a sign of great troubles ahead.
Inevitably, the Conservatives will play politics with the announcement, but there is still no apology from them for trashing the economy. There is not one moment of reflection that the previous Government’s policy on electric vehicles was a disaster. The policy simply did not do enough on infrastructure and incentives. The Government therefore need to fix the Tories’ mess. As a starting point, the Government urgently need to work with Vauxhall to mitigate this major shock for the area. The Government have said that they will fast-track a consultation, but it needs to be fast-tracked today. Urgency is the key, so when will that consultation start, and when does the Secretary of State expect it to report? The previous Government did not do enough to incentivise people to buy electric vehicles, nor did they provide the right infrastructure. What are the Government doing to increase sales of electric vehicles and increase the number of charging points in places such as my constituency?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions and observations, and apologise that he has had to hear me speak twice on this topic in the short period of time between last night and today. He has asked the Conservative party to apologise for its economic record. That case stands for itself, but I would also like to know, given how urgently this issue was presented to us as a new Government, what the last Government were doing at the end of their time in office. What did they know? What conversations were they aware of? Certainly, we inherited a position of extreme frustration from the company, and I cannot imagine that that frustration had not been conveyed in some way to our predecessors.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, there were policies in the Budget relating to charging infrastructure—which I recognise is a key part of this issue—as well as £2 billion for research and development through the automotive transformation fund and the partnership with business that we use that fund for. Obviously, the consultation he asked about will come from the Department for Transport. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), asked why that consultation is happening, but the previous Government set these policies out in primary legislation, so he knows that there are processes to follow. Any conversation about the thresholds in the existing policy would be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to have, but I refer back to my points about how the system works and the flexibilities and allowances in, and how we can make sure that we are giving automotive manufacturers in the UK a system that lets them get to the transition they and the consumer want, but in a way that works with industry to enable that transition to happen for the benefit of the United Kingdom.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a trade union member, as well as someone with friends who have heard that they have lost their jobs.
Closing the Luton site will damage our local economy, with 600 more jobs at risk in the supply chain and workers and families receiving this devastating news just before Christmas. I welcome the comments of the Secretary of State that decarbonisation must not mean deindustrialisation and the decimation of good, skilled jobs. Will his announcement today move the dial in discussions with Stellantis to help protect the Luton site? I also welcome his tone—he is taking this seriously, compared with Opposition Members—so will he join me in visiting workers and their trade union representatives at the Luton site to listen to their concerns?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I believe everyone in the House who cares about the automotive sector and working people in this country will share the sentiments she has expressed about the scale of what this decision will mean for Luton. I can absolutely promise her that I will take up her invitation to come with her to the site. I can also promise her the full deployment of my Department and, indeed, all of my colleagues across Government to provide whatever help is required. We are in conversations with Stellantis—as is the union, I believe—about the details of the package that will be presented to the workforce, but of course, I will engage closely with my hon. Friend and with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) to make sure that package is to the maximum benefit of her constituents and the wider area.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
As a Bedfordshire MP, I know how significant the Vauxhall plant is to our local economy and as a local employer. The Secretary of State has explained how devastating this decision will be for families locally, not just in Luton but in my constituency. Unfortunately, though, he has said very little about how he is going to support the people who are losing their jobs. Is the Secretary of State concerned that this Government’s tax on jobs will make it much more difficult to replace these 1,000 manufacturing jobs in Bedfordshire?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sentiments, but the straightforward answer to that question is no. This is a skilled and talented workforce. These workers have not lost their jobs because of any deficiencies on their part; rather, they have been put in this position by a combination of factors, including the overcapacity in Europe. To be frank, from the minute we came into office, I think the company already intended this closure—it has nothing whatsoever to do with Government policy. I recognise the pressures arising from the existing policy we have inherited, hence the pragmatism on our part as a Government to make sure the policy is working for the transition, but I have no doubt that whether these workers choose to take advantage of the relocation offer or of demand elsewhere, they are brilliant, talented people who will be in demand.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Before I start, I want to put on record that the 1,100 people who will be losing their jobs in Luton today deserved much better than the response from the Conservative Front-Bench representative. It was very far from factual, and very far from serious.
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome any support for Vauxhall workers and their families, who are understandably devastated by Stellantis’s decision, especially this close to Christmas. It follows the closure of the SKF plant in Luton North earlier this year after a century of manufacturing. Like SKF, Vauxhall is, or was, synonymous with Luton. Stellantis’s callous decision will impact our whole town—our whole region, even—so what support will be offered, not just to the skilled and dedicated Vauxhall workers who are losing their jobs but to our town as a whole, to cope with the loss of this manufacturing giant that Luton helped build?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question as well, and echo the sentiments I expressed to her constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins). This whole decision is regrettable, but its timing is particularly regrettable. As I said in my statement, since the new Government came into power on 5 July, we have done everything we can to try to avoid this decision. I reiterated the offers I have made throughout the negotiating process, both in policy flexibility and potential new Government investment in the site, but regrettably it was not possible to change the decision.
I have made clear the support that is available, and I reiterate that promise. I do not want to minimise the impact of this decision in any way, but I believe my hon. Friend’s area is a place of considerable economic strength, with firms in the engineering, aerospace and air travel sectors and in the creative industries. There is a lot to be optimistic about for the future, but I recognise that that does not take away the bitterness of this particular blow for Luton at this time.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I make it clear that Conservative Members regard this as a very grave matter. We are taking it seriously, and we are also dealing in facts. Turning to veracity, then, can we hear whether or not Stellantis raised the question of the eye-watering ZEV mandate fines and asked for them to be lifted?
Jonathan Reynolds
Yes. In the conversations we had with representatives of Stellantis, they raised every aspect of the previous Government’s policy, including the flexibilities, the ability to cap and trade and some of the allowances, and what they would mean for the bottom line. I take those concerns seriously, which is why I am willing—in a way that does not undermine the destination —to consult on how this policy works alongside my colleague the Secretary of State for Transport. Although I understand the previous Government’s aspiration and why they introduced this policy, I do not think that when that decision was made, they considered the kind of falling demand that we have seen in Europe. We have to work pragmatically across all bits of Government to make sure this policy does not lead to the kinds of outcomes that many of us who are aware of how exactly this sector works are concerned about.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and am greatly saddened by Stellantis’s decision. May I suggest that plant and platform rationalisation would have been a major factor? Let us be honest: the industry wanted certainty, but automotive manufacturers faced the challenge of meeting the ZEV mandate introduced by the last Government, which was more stringent than that in Europe and most other markets. Put simply, consumer uncertainty was introduced by the last Government, so I find the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State disingenuous.
Matt Western
I withdraw it, Mr Speaker. Thank you.
I urge the Government to introduce more flexibility in the annual targets from 2024 to 2029, introduce consumer incentives, and consider redirecting any penalties towards EV charging infrastructure, not to Chinese Government car companies.
Jonathan Reynolds
My hon. Friend makes some very good points about the fact that while nearly every major market has policies of this kind, ours operates in a different way from how the French, for example, proceeded with theirs. I agree that the major failing of the former Prime Minister’s speech was to keep this policy in place, but change the destination—that makes no coherent sense whatsoever. Logically, he should have done one or the other; doing both undermines confidence while still not providing the pragmatic flexibilities we are talking about today. The specific points that my hon. Friend has mentioned will all be part of the consultation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will lead on.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I assure the Secretary of State that I would have put the question I am about to ask to a Conservative Minister equally. If all British car manufacturers came together and told the Government that they could not possibly meet this 2030 goal, would the Government nevertheless persevere in maintaining it as an immovable target?
Jonathan Reynolds
I would recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s fairness and equity whichever side of the House he was sitting on, and I have no doubts about that.
We do listen to those in industry and we have a very close relationship with them, which is why we understand that the destination they want is 2030. The pressures on the system in the next few years are because of this situation, but—I say this in good faith to Conservative Members—I do not believe that the Ministers at the time considered the full set of European and global economic factors when making these decisions. That is why we have to get the balance right. Given that we are an export-led automotive producer, we should also recognise that if we were not ambitious about the transition, we would lose our export markets—we would not have anything to sell, because other countries have such policies and that is where the consumer is going. This is about how we support the transition, and we are working closely with they industry on that.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Unite the union.
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House on such a difficult day for the car industry, and all our thoughts are with the workers in Luton today. I thank him for the work he is doing in engaging with the industry and with unions on a better way forward on electric vehicle targets. This news is really disappointing, but does he agree that we can and should be positive about the future of the automotive industry in this country? It matters to me locally as the MP for many businesses in the automotive supply chain, as I know it also matters to many Members across the House.
Jonathan Reynolds
I thoroughly agree with the content and sentiment of my hon. Friend’s question. The support this Government are committed to is about that transition, but we should be excited by what British manufacturers such as Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan and Toyota are doing, and at the luxury end of the market, about McLaren and Rolls-Royce supercars. I could mention all of our iconic brands, and there are a lot of exciting things going on. If hon. Members are not aware of that, all those manufacturers are more than happy to host Members of Parliament coming to visit, so I encourage people to do so. However, they will explain the pressures they are under in the short term, and they will endorse the change of policy this Government are putting forward.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Electric Vehicle Association says that 14 non-governmental organisations, think-tanks and campaign groups are advocating for upholding the ZEV mandate. We have just seen the most devastating storms, which have been dangerously accelerated by climate change. I know that the Government know that net zero is not negotiable. The previous Government persistently undermined the motor manufacturing industry. Will this Government listen to the Electric Vehicle Association, which, after all, is supporting this Government in their ambition to get to net zero?
Jonathan Reynolds
I genuinely appreciate the question coming from that perspective, but this is not just about NGOs. We have been in close contact with big business about charging infrastructure, and I understand the importance of that. I want to make it clear that that is why we are not undermining transition, but are ambitious with the industry about where we will get to. Nothing we propose as a Government will itself reduce or limit the deployment of electric vehicles. What I am talking about, and what we are talking about as a Government, is looking at how, for instance, the flexibilities in the system operate. We are doing everything we can, alongside industry, to get to that destination.
I want nothing to do with the approach of the previous Government, which had a really detrimental effect on the industry, as it will tell any hon. Member very clearly. I am listening to what it means to have this change in economic circumstances in relation to private demand for electric vehicles, and I want to work with industry to get to the place or the destination that I think we both strongly support.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The previous Government were warned before the election, including multiple times in this Chamber, about the damage they were doing to the car industry. The constant changes of policy on net zero, missing targets on the roll-out of charge points and the failure to even allocate the rapid charging fund have all undermined consumer confidence. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that, as soon as possible after his review, he balances the needs of manufacturers of cars and vans with the needs of consumers?
Jonathan Reynolds
I believe my hon. Friend’s analysis is absolutely right, and he and I were in the Chamber on several occasions when that case was made to the previous Government. The intervention from the former Prime Minister was not based on any kind of business or economic logic, but was an attempt to create some sort of wedge issue before the election. Frankly, that did them absolutely no good, because people saw straight through it. I say again that to change the deadline, but keep the existing thresholds in place up until 2030 was the worst of all worlds—it really did have a negative impact on consumer confidence—and we will never repeat those mistakes.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Secretary of State said in his statement that, at the time of the election, Stellantis was minded to close the plant. However, since the election we have had the Budget, which has imposed £25 billion of increased taxes on business, and the Employment Rights Bill, which will also increase costs on business enormously. Both have led directly to a collapse in business confidence. Does the Secretary of State think that those decisions helped Stellantis to stay or go?
Jonathan Reynolds
I can tell the hon. Member categorically that those decisions had no impact whatsoever. This is the crucial point. I hear Conservative Members say this, but do they have any idea about employment conditions in the automotive sector? Those conditions are well above the floor that the Employment Rights Bill will raise them to in the United Kingdom. They should get out and talk to industry and have such conversations—please.
To be clear, on the wider point the hon. Member makes about business confidence, I recognise that the outrageous inheritance this Government walked in on, with Conservative Ministers not even planning to say how they would pay for the promises they had made, created speculation about where the revenue would come from. I regret the fact that we had to make difficult decisions. Ideally, we would not have wanted to make those decisions, but we are the people fixing the foundations and clearing up the mess the Conservative party left behind. There can be no long-term prosperity unless we have a serious Government willing to do that.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), who is a fierce champion for her constituents. Does the Secretary of State agree that the news yesterday only highlights further the urgent need for a UK industrial strategy, and demonstrates the challenges that UK industry faced under the last Government without such a strategy in place?
Jonathan Reynolds
I absolutely echo my hon. Friend’s sentiments about my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire, and I very much agree with her statement about a UK industrial strategy. There have been and are policies relevant to the automotive sector, but what we have lacked for a long time, across a range of key sectors in the UK, are confidence and certainty that those plans will remain. People have talked during this statement about the actions of the previous Prime Minister in that intervention, but that is exactly the opposite of what is required for long-term policy. The advanced manufacturing sector is one of the eight sectors in our industrial strategy. It is a sector of tremendous strengths in the United Kingdom, and our intention is to build on that and grow it to deliver even more success in future, which is why it is such a fundamental part of our plans.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I commiserate with the workers in Luton who will lose their jobs. If Vauxhall is synonymous with Luton, Ford is synonymous with Essex. The Secretary of State referred to 800 Ford job losses, including at its research centre at Dunton, where many of my Rayleigh and Wickford constituents work.
On electric vehicles specifically, I am a free trader by instinct, but what China is doing in that area is way beyond normal competitive practice. It is dumping electric vehicles very cheaply on world markets, a point highlighted by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). What specifically do the Government intend to do about that to maintain fair competition and give British companies, including Ford and Vauxhall, a fair chance to compete?
Jonathan Reynolds
First, let me reiterate my words about the right hon. Member’s constituents and the situation at Ford. I have faced this accusation before, but if anyone thinks the Government are somehow only listening to one part of industry or are responding to special pleading, the announcement by Ford followed by what we have had from Stellantis this week is proof that we do need to move, to listen and to look at some of the policies we inherited and make sure they are working as they should.
I reiterate my earlier comments to the Chair of the Select Committee. We have not changed the Trade Remedies Authority and the system we inherited. If Ford or any other company wants to make a referral against unfair competitive practices, it can do that, but such a request has not come from any part of the industry to date. I would not for a second describe the Chinese economy as one that operates on the market principles with which we are familiar, but we have to be aware that the fundamental threat from China comes from its commitment to research and development, innovation, high-tech solutions and being able to manufacture at scale. We are kidding ourselves if we think the threat is just unfair competition. That economy has an incredible level of ambition for the future, which is why we have to raise our game as well.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Many of my constituents will be impacted by this deeply worrying announcement, so can the Secretary of State confirm what discussions he is having with trade unions on this specific subject and what plans he has to mitigate the job losses for residents of North East Hertfordshire?
Jonathan Reynolds
Again, I recognise the situation facing my hon. Friend’s constituents, and there will be support on offer from the Government. He asks specifically about conversations with trade unions. I can confirm that I had several conversations just yesterday—for instance, with Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite—to ensure that what the Government are doing and what is being negotiated by the recognised union on behalf of the workforce are consistent. I recognise that for many people in the local area, the offer of relocation as part of the deal will not be attractive, as people have links, families and other situations. However, as the details emerge, I promise that I will keep the House and Members of Parliament updated, and work closely with them to ensure that it is everything it can be.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Let us be honest: these job losses are a direct result of net zero and the previous Government’s electric vehicle targets. Is the Secretary of State aware that car manufacturers across Europe are losing fortunes on EV production? They are trying to delay targets, and what we are witnessing is just the beginning of the slow, agonising, painful and tragic destruction of hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in the UK automotive industry.
Jonathan Reynolds
I certainly agree that we should be honest, and the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the UK automotive sector is simply not correct. All I ask him to do is this: do not listen to the Government or even the Opposition, but go and speak to the industry and the firms involved. He should ask them about their investment plans, and find out why he is so out of touch with industry sentiment. Many of the problems in some other European countries have come from a lack of ambition on transition. Fundamentally, if we are selling 80% of what we make in the UK to other markets, there is no long-term market for internal combustion engines and we must recognise that. Again, the hon. Gentleman should not take it from the Government; he should take it from industry. I am afraid that on this one, as with our exchange on steel a few months ago, he is just out of touch with what consumers and business want.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that unlike the Conservative party, this Labour Government do not regard the words “industrial strategy” as anathema? Does he agree that UK industry in general, and the automotive sector specifically, suffered under the previous Government due to their laissez-faire stand-aside approach?
Jonathan Reynolds
I very much believe that industrial strategy is essential to the future of the United Kingdom. I hoped that this would be supported on a cross-party basis, and I see no reason why Conservative Members, or anyone else, would not support an industrial strategy. Indeed, some Conservative Members, or their predecessors, held positions similar to the one I hold. They got this and believed in it, and did quite a good job in some difficult circumstances within the Conservative party. Yes, an industrial strategy is essential to this Government, and I hope the whole House will get behind our plans for Invest 2035. The response from industry has been superb. It is what we need as a country, and we should all get behind that.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is clearly a sad day for Luton and workers there, but the Secretary of State must remember that this is not just about Luton but about the whole car manufacturing industry, and workers up and down the country in that industry will be saying, “Am I going to be next?” Will the Secretary of State set out his position on conversations that he is having with other car manufacturers to ensure that the same thing does not happen to them?
Jonathan Reynolds
I reiterate the points I made in my statement: this is about the whole sector, and while we walked in to find a certain position with this plant when we formed the Government on 5 July, we recognise that there are also sector-wide issues. That is why we have been having these conversations, and why we are willing to show pragmatism and change some of the policies we have inherited to ensure that they are working for British industry.
The hon. Gentleman asked about specific conversations. As I said in my statement, just last week we had a meeting with all the major UK-based original equipment manufacturers and wider representatives of the sector to talk about the flexibilities that might be required to make this policy work in a way that does not undermine British industry, but gets us to a common destination for industry, Government and consumers together. That is exactly what we are doing, and whatever Conservative Members feel about the previous Government’s policy, I ask them to get behind that ambition.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Success in the transition to electrical vehicles is vital for the west country and Somerset in particular, with the new Agratas battery plant that is coming to Somerset and the port of Bristol, through which go 500,000 vehicles a year. Will the Secretary of State please act to support consumers and consumer confidence by restoring the plug-in grant?
Jonathan Reynolds
I assure the hon. Member that I will do everything I can to bolster consumer confidence. I say all the time that products made in the United Kingdom are great. If people are unaware of just how great they are, they should book themselves a test drive, or visit the production lines and see how brilliant they are. The Agratas factory is an incredible investment and will be significant. I have always said that for the long-term future of this sector we must make batteries in the United Kingdom. Over the long term, vehicles will be made where the batteries are made, and that is a key part of the industrial strategy for the sector.
I cannot make an announcement on the plug-in grant as that is not covered by the Department for Business and Trade, but I confirm to the hon. Member that across the Government, whether in the Treasury, the Department for Transport or the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, we are all united in wanting to make the transition a success, and we are willing to listen to hon. Members like herself and to industry about the policies that are necessary to do that.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
In his statement, the Secretary of State mentioned the job losses at Ford in Dunton in my constituency, and I thank the Minister for Industry for speaking to me on the phone earlier this week about that. I welcome the fast track of the review that the Secretary of State is putting forward. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, and I have spoken to manufacturers about potential Chinese electric car dumping in the UK. Will the Secretary of State comment on that? Concerns have also been raised with me by local car manufacturers about the increase in vehicle excise duty on some models in the Budget. Is there any possibility that some of those measures could be looked at again, as they are having an impact on the demand for such vehicles in the UK?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful that we have been able to get the right hon. Gentleman some time with Ministers regarding the serious situation affecting his constituents. Members of this Government will always take that seriously, as I believe Ministers did under the previous Administration. Vehicle excise duty is a question for the Treasury and the Chancellor, but the differential that exists from changes in the Budget between internal combustion engines and electric vehicles is one of the demand incentives that now exist within the system. Everyone would recognise that the Government should do everything they can to support industry during the transition, and such measures are part of the answer. If the right hon. Gentleman has specific concerns, we will always be willing to listen to those.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The Secretary of State was robust in his criticism of the previous Government and their approach to the zero emission vehicle mandate, but was he one of the 141 Labour MPs who voted for the ZEV mandate?
Jonathan Reynolds
Let me be clear: we worked constructively on the ZEV mandate that the previous Conservative Government put forward. I believe in incentives towards the transition. I am not arguing against that—I reacted to the sheer brass neck of those on the Opposition Front Bench, who somehow did not even recognise that it was their policy that we were willing to change, and presented the argument as if it was the other way round. I will be robust in saying that the facts are as they are when those on the Opposition Front Bench are not willing to accept them.
We want this transition to work. This is not about the destination or even the thresholds; this is about the flexibilities, how the policy operates, and what that means for market conditions in the United Kingdom. That is an entirely reasonable and proper response to what we found walking through the door as a new Government, and I see no reason why people cannot pragmatically get on board and support that.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
One thing stopping some of my constituents from transitioning to electric vehicles is a lack of access to charging points. As a constituency neighbour, the Secretary of State will know that some of the housing stock in my patch lends itself more easily to personalised charging points than other parts. What more can the Government do to ensure that everyone can access charging points to make the transition to EVs?
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree that that is one concern that consumers have. The principal concern for consumers on EV take-up is the cost of the vehicle. The hon. Member will know from our constituencies that in some places, it is difficult to envisage the kind of infrastructure that people take for granted in areas that have more capacity to have it built into properties and driveways. There are about 70,000 public EV chargers in the United Kingdom, and there is not always equity across different parts of the country. A lot of people are surprised to learn that we have more public chargers than Norway, for instance, which is very much the leader in electric vehicle roll-out. There was money in the Budget to expand the roll-out of charge points and build on the 70,000 already in place, but the hon. Member is right to say that that is a key concern. We must consider not just the overall number of charging points, but the equity of those around the country, and I promise that the Department for Transport is interested in that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and in particular for his honesty. It is important to have that when we look at the bleak things we have before us.
The Secretary of State will understand that with the cost of living crisis that our constituents are struggling through, the last thing on their minds is to afford—forgive me—an all-singing, all-dancing electric car; they are clearly struggling to pay their electric bills. The closure of the plant, which highlights the lack of passion for electric cars, can come as no surprise. What can the Government do to make electric cars affordable for everyone, which would enhance the need for car manufacturers once again?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question and the way in which he put it. He is right that cost of living concerns are paramount. We have also got to recognise that the cost of petrol and diesel is often a key consideration in overall household finances.
The hon. Member asked specifically about what we can do to bring down the cost. It is about co-investing with industry in the most efficient forms of production. He mentioned an all-singing, all-dancing EV, but there is a whole range of vehicles available. Many of our producers have led on family cars. The Nissan Leaf is a great example of that, made by some of my former school friends in Sunderland. We should get behind that and talk about how great those products are. But, fundamentally, we need now to bring down not just the cost of the charging infrastructure but the unit cost. That can be done only by investment in efficient production and scale production. That is why the destination is so important. Working with industry on that destination is key to delivering the outcomes that I think he and I want.
Budget Resolutions
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
It is a pleasure to open this final day of the debate on the Chancellor’s growth Budget. Can I welcome the new shadow team? It is lovely to see them in place. I think many of us on this side would admit that we were shadow Ministers for longer than we ideally would have been, and I know that it is a tough and thankless job at times. On a personal level, I wish them well for the future.
As the Chancellor rightly stated, growth is our only path to prosperity, to increasing living standards and to delivering the change that the British people voted for so decisively over the summer, and we on these Benches recognise that we cannot have growth without investment. Growth demands investment in our infrastructure, into our public services, into the cities and regions that have gone overlooked and under-invested in by past Administrations, and that is what this Budget chooses. It chooses investment over decline, with more than £100 billion of public investment into our roads and our railways, our parks and our playgrounds, our schools and our surgeries—all the things upon which a successful economy and a healthy society depend.
This was a Budget for affordable homes, for the NHS, for the school rebuilding programme and—a personal priority for me as MP for Stalybridge and Hyde—for the trans-Pennine route upgrade, including a new station at Mossley, which is something I am sure the whole House can be excited about and get behind. This is literally rebuilding Britain in action, and make no mistake, businesses need that public investment too, because it creates the right environment for them to thrive now and long into the future. That is why the Office for Budget Responsibility says that our increases in spending will drive up the long-term increase in GDP by up to 1.4%.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State makes much of growth. Of course we all want growth, but the OBR report actually says that growth in real GDP will start to slow over the next three years and that in years four and five of the Parliament it will go negative. It is telling us that the Government’s Budget is actually going to result in a smaller private sector, not a larger one. How is he going to explain that to business?
Jonathan Reynolds
That is not what it says. First, on the figures, we cannot make a like-for-like comparison because we know that the information provided by the previous Government in their financial information was erroneous. They did not square their own spending pledges with what was in those documents. The analysis by the OBR shows that long-term improvement in GDP growth is vital, but the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that it cannot model some of the wider parts of the Government’s agenda. It cannot model those changes in the planning system that are so important to the Government. It cannot model the changes involved in having a long-term industrial strategy. It cannot model our changes to trade policy.
I recognise that there is more to do to prove the case of the Government’s overall commitment, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that fundamentally fixing the foundations, honesty and stability in the public finances, and a focus on long-term public investment are essential to the long-term growth of the country. Also, one thing that has not had sufficient recognition is that many of the real benefits of greater public investment do not accrue in this Parliament; they accrue beyond it, and it is about time we had some long-term focus again in this country. Not before time, if I may say so.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman will, I hope, be aware that the long-term economic growth of this country relies not primarily on public investment or indeed public infrastructure, but on a healthy private sector—the wealth creators from whom we can take the funding to deliver into those goods that he talks about and that are part of a balanced and successful society. This Budget does not help them. It does the opposite.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am sorry but, again, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. I agree with part of his assessment, such as that a strong and thriving private sector is crucial to growth, but I find his analysis a little simplistic. Private firms will say that they also need skilled workers, and that they need a decent transport system so they can get to work.
Under the last Government, I would often get up in the morning and check my phone for updates from people using the trans-Pennine line I just mentioned—the one we are upgrading—and it would be full of people saying, “I cannot get to work.” I need the right hon. Gentleman to make a slightly broader analysis.
Despite the previous Government leaving us with a raging skip fire in many areas—we have to raise money, not to deliver our pledges but to deliver their pledges that they did not properly fund—we have had a regard and a heed for the level of competitiveness in the UK economy. For instance, on the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions, over half of all firms with national insurance liabilities will actually pay less or the same, not only because of the changes to the employment allowance but because of how we have removed the threshold so that all firms now qualify.
Despite the frankly terrible inheritance bequeathed to us, we have done our best to meet those needs and to deliver a long-term focus on the future.
Jim Shannon
I hope the Minister will not be disappointed.
There are many good things in what the Government have brought forward, but what is missing, unfortunately, is support for farmers on inheritance tax. Farmers are the backbone of Britain, and they produce almost all the food we eat across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Farmers will be impacted greatly.
I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and the National Farmers’ Union, and all the farmers I talk to in Northern Ireland have indicated that every farmer in Northern Ireland will be affected by inheritance tax. If the Government want to get it right, the threshold needs to be raised, and it is not too late. Raise the threshold to £4 million or £5 million so that family farms, the backbone of Britain, can continue.
Jonathan Reynolds
I always listen to the hon. Gentleman because he is genuine and conscientious in representing his constituency’s interests. I will always listen to what he has to say. We can judge the exact impact of these changes by looking at the value of claims to date. The Conservative party’s analysis has forgotten to aggregate the impact of the changes to those allowances, such as agricultural property relief, alongside the existing nil-rate band and the ability to transfer the allowances between spouses in all cases. The total number of farms across the UK that will be affected by this change is actually only 500 for the 2026-27 financial year. That has been missed, and I remind colleagues that any inheritance tax liability has a 10-year, interest-free payment period. To be frank, there has been some scaremongering from the Opposition, and we have to be clear with people.
We have had to restore economic stability to deliver that investment, and we should not shy away from explaining why this has been so necessary. The previous Government’s scattergun approach to growth left our country starved of investment, economically divided and struggling to maintain a competitive edge in the global economy.
The previous Government’s claim to have delivered the fastest-growing economy in the G7, based on its performance in the first half of this year, is laughably false. I believe that The Sunday Times likened it to someone walking a marathon in six hours but, because they ran the last 100 yards, claiming to be the fastest runner in the world. The truth is that consistency and stability have been sorely lacking. We have had seven growth strategies since 2010 and 11 Business Secretaries in as many years, to say nothing of the UK’s revolving door of Prime Ministers.
Jonathan Reynolds
I have already given the right hon. Gentleman a go. I will make a little progress, and we will see whether he can do a better one next time.
The result was a protracted period of anaemic growth. Had our economy grown at the average rate of other OECD countries over this period, it would have been £171 billion larger. Imagine the difference that would have made to all of our communities and to today’s Budget debate. British firms, facing such uncertainty, have not seen investing domestically as a sufficiently attractive proposition. They have been reluctant to adopt new technology, to upskill their employees or to plough money into research and development. We have even heard that, in any given year, roughly 40% of UK firms choose not to invest at all. We want to change that for good. We want to give businesses certainty, confidence and stability so that they can make decisions for the long term.
That is why, at the Budget, the Chancellor reaffirmed our new modern industrial strategy. Invest 2035 will be a central pillar of our growth mission. The strategy will allow businesses to plan not just for the next 10 months, but for the next 10 years. It has already won the backing of Make UK, which has told us that businesses will no longer have to
“fear the constant chop and change in policy we have seen over the last decade.”
Instead, they can focus on the long term.
Our industrial strategy will create a strong pro-business environment, making it simpler and cheaper for companies to scale up and invest. It will unleash the potential of our high-productivity services and industries, because our recent economic history has taught us that we have to play to our strengths. Over the last 25 years, high-productivity sectors were responsible for roughly 60% of our economy’s entire productivity growth. Looking at the figures since 1990, over half of the UK economy’s GDP growth has come from just three sectors—information and communications technology, financial and professional services, and advanced manufacturing.
That is why our industrial strategy will channel support to eight key growth-driving sectors, those in which the UK services sector will excel both today and tomorrow—the services and industries that present the greatest opportunity for output and productivity growth over the long term.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
How does that all gel with the fact that the OBR is saying that business investment will fall by 0.6%, as a share of GDP, by 2029? It sounds great, but it does not add up in the OBR’s eyes. Will the Minister please elaborate?
Jonathan Reynolds
We have a similar question. The Government’s wider pro-business changes cannot be modelled by the OBR, and we know that we have to prove them. There is simply no way that we will get to the higher business investment, the higher productivity growth and the stronger economic growth that we need in all parts of the country unless we are honest, robust and responsible with the public finances, as this Budget is and the previous Government were not. If the Budget does not set the trajectory for strong long-term public investment, to leverage in that degree of private investment, we will not have the foundations to succeed. I am so excited by this Budget because it gives us those strong foundations for the future.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The problem with our economy is that, too often, people build small businesses and then sell them off. They do not sit and develop them before potentially handing them on. Can the Minister explain how the proposed inheritance tax changes will encourage people to take risks in nurturing and growing their businesses in order to pass them on to succeeding generations? Plainly, his suggestion will have the reverse effect and will, therefore, make the situation worse, which will damage growth.
Jonathan Reynolds
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the detail of our plans. From the data held by the Treasury, we can plan for how many firms will be affected, and it is a very small number. In most cases, given the existing inheritance tax nil-rate band, especially where property is involved or where there is a transfer from one spouse to another in the inheritance chain, the allowance is so great that it is already considerably in excess of the average claim for relief in this area.
The right hon. Gentleman is talking about a very small number of firms at the very large end. I think the revenue can be raised in a way that protects the kind of family firms he and I want to see continue to thrive. We all know there are cases where, for instance, people advertise the sale of agricultural land or certain types of investments specifically to avoid inheritance tax, which is not right. That is not good for business. We have to recognise that these fair and proportionate changes will pay for the last Government’s spending commitments. The changes will always have a benchmark for international competitiveness, in a way that the right hon. Gentleman should recognise rather than scaremonger.
At the Budget, as a statement of intent for our new industrial strategy, we saw the Chancellor make the first of many down payments with multi-year funding commitments for these areas of our economy. There will be significant tax relief for our world-leading creative industries, up to £0.5 billion for a brand-new life sciences innovative manufacturing fund, and nearly £1 billion for our aerospace sector to fund vital research and development into jet zero technology, which will boost industries in the east midlands, the south-west and Scotland. There is also £2 billion for our automotive sector, ensuring that the next generation of electric vehicles are designed, developed and built right here in the UK.
At the same time, we recognise that our industrial strategy’s success rests upon working in partnership with mayors and multinationals, councils and CEOs, unions and academics. That is why this Government are championing local growth plans—growth plans for the long term—to be delivered by strong local political leadership, which will work together with the Government to create the right conditions for success.
Crucially, our new industrial strategy will be international from the start, taking learnings from the best of what has been achieved globally so that we enable businesses of all sizes and sectors to thrive in our market. To that end, it will work in lockstep with our trade strategy and our twin-track approach to trade, acceding to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership and negotiating deals with the Gulf Co-operation Council and India, all to the benefit of British business.
Unlike the previous Administration, we are also making it much easier for UK firms to do business in and with Europe. Although the Opposition might not want to hear it, the EU is not just our closest trading partner but is still our largest trading partner, by quite some margin, yet the previous Government’s adversarial approach to working with the EU—all that incendiary rhetoric—was not conducive to good business. We are changing course, aiming to remove unnecessary barriers to trade, so that British companies will be able to operate more easily in France, Germany, Italy and across Europe.
We are making real progress. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission issued a joint statement to deepen our co-operation on the economy, energy and security. We have agreed to regular EU-UK summits to strengthen our connections in all those areas, including the close business and investment ties that connect our economies.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the sectors that will benefit, does the Secretary of State agree that the hospitality sector would benefit more from some honesty and openness? The Government announced a 6% increase for people on the minimum wage, many of whom are employed in the private hospitality sector, but while our constituents will pay for that, the Treasury will benefit by hundreds of millions of pounds, because almost all those minimum wage earners will become taxpayers overnight.
Andrew Griffith
I will happily give way to the Secretary of State if he wants to explain why he no longer deems it important to invest in these crucial parts of the economy.
Jonathan Reynolds
Let us reflect on where we are today—the first day of the constructive Opposition. The new Leader of the Conservative party stood at the Dispatch Box two hours ago and called for both tax cuts and massive public spending on defence. How are you going to pay for projects that you promised but never delivered, and that you knew you could never pay for?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The Secretary of State knows better than to say “you”.
Regulatory Partnership for Growth Fund
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
Today I am announcing a new £2.3 million regulatory partnership for growth fund (RPGF), which will help to unlock export opportunities worth nearly £5 billion for UK companies over five years.
The RPGF will help UK regulators work with international partners to remove trade barriers and shape markets in various growing sectors. The Department for Business and Trade will offer grant funding agreements to UK regulators and standard setting bodies in order to undertake targeted, specific interventions to unlock regulatory market access barriers.
The fund builds on the Prime Minister’s call at the international investment summit last week for UK regulators to support the Government’s growth mission, keep pace with emerging industries and upgrade the regulatory regime to make it fit for the modern age.
This will see UK businesses, including in growth-driving sectors, benefit from almost £5 billion of new export opportunities over five years, with trade barriers worth £300 million being targeted within the first 12 months—equivalent to an average of £135 in exports per £1 invested.
For example, the fund will generate new opportunities for the UK offshore wind supply chain to export their products and services globally; enable the UK’s pharmaceutical industry to more easily sell medicines in markets around the world; and improve the process for accreditation of UK education providers to sell their services abroad.
List of organisations to receive funding
Architects Registration Board (ARB)
Operators of UK National Information Centre for global qualifications and skills (Ecctis)
The Food Standards Agency (FSA)
The Law Society of England and Wales
The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult (OREC)
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA)
[HCWS157]
Making Work Pay
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
The Government’s plan to make work pay is a core part of our mission to grow the economy, raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all. It will tackle the low pay, the poor working conditions and the poor job security that have been holding our economy back. The landmark Employment Rights Bill will benefit more than 10 million workers in every corner of the country.
We have committed to working with all stakeholders on how best to put these measures into practice. As trailed in the Government’s “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document, published on 10 October, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Work and Pensions secretary and I are today launching four six-week consultations. Subject to the outcome of these consultations, we will consider whether there is a need for any Government amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.
Consultation 1: The application of zero-hours contracts measures to agency workers
The Employment Rights Bill includes measures to deliver our commitments to end exploitative zero-hours contracts by introducing:
A right to a contract with guaranteed hours that reflects the number of hours regularly worked, based on a 12-week reference period; and
a right to reasonable notice of shifts, and proportionate payment for short-notice shift cancellations and curtailment.
The Government believe that all workers, including agency workers, should have the right to guaranteed hours that reflect the hours they regularly work. The Government’s intention is that agency workers should also have a right to reasonable notice of shifts and receive payment for shifts that are cancelled or curtailed at short notice. The unique tripartite relationship between agency workers, employment agencies and hirers makes the application of these measures to them particularly complex. The zero-hours contract measures create new responsibilities for employers. For agency workers we need to decide whether these responsibilities sit with the employment agency, the end hirer or both. The first consultation being launched today seeks to understand how these measures can best apply to agency workers.
Consultation 2: Creating a modern framework for industrial relations
The Government are committed to a new partnership approach of co-operation and negotiation that sees employers and trade unions working with Government to tackle the challenges affecting our economy. Workplaces and working practices have changed significantly over the last decade and the trade union legislation that underpins industrial relations is in need of modernisation. Poor industrial relations have held the UK back from reaching its potential. In 2022, 2.5 million working days were lost due to strikes in the UK. In 2023 it was close to 2.7 million—the most in any year since 1989.
We are committed to developing a framework for industrial relations that will stand the test of time. This consultation is taking those first steps forward, to help us build a positive, modern framework for our industrial relations.
The Government are seeking views on a number of changes to modernise and hardwire negotiation, engagement and dispute resolution into industrial relations. The consultation includes proposals on: simplifying the amount of information that unions are required to provide in industrial action notices; strengthening provisions to prevent unfair practices during the trade union recognition process; securing a mandate for negotiation and dispute resolution; requirements on political funds; extending the expiry of the strike mandate; reducing the industrial action notice period; updating the law on repudiation and prior call; and seeking views on the enforcement mechanism for right of access.
Consultation 3: Strengthening remedies against abuse of rules on collective redundancy and fire and rehire
The Employment Rights Bill expands protections for employees in fire and rehire and collective redundancy scenarios. It does this by banning fire and rehire practices other than when the employer genuinely has no alternative and by ensuring that the right to collective consultation is determined by the number of people impacted across the entire business, rather than in one workplace.
The Government are also committed to reforming the law to provide effective remedies against abuse of the rules on fire and rehire and collective redundancy. The third consultation being launched today seeks views on doing that by increasing the maximum period for the protective award for scenarios where employers have not complied with their collective redundancy obligations, and adding interim relief to collective redundancies and unfair dismissals in fire and rehire scenarios.
Consultation 4: Strengthening statutory sick pay
The Employment Rights Bill includes measures to strengthen statutory sick pay for those who need it most, by removing the existing requirements to serve waiting days and extending eligibility to those earning below the lower earnings limit. The Department for Work and Pensions is therefore launching a consultation to support this ambition, and to ensure that the safety net of sick pay is available for those who need it most.
The changes introduced within the Bill will mean that for some lower earners, including those earning below the lower earnings limit, their rate of statutory sick pay will be calculated as a percentage of their earnings instead of the flat weekly rate. This consultation is seeking views on what this percentage should be, to ensure that it provides a fair earnings replacement when these employees need to take time off work. A copy of the relevant equality impact assessment will be deposited in the Library of the House once available.
Next steps for consultation
This package represents the first phase of formal consultations on how best to put our plans into practice.
As is typical with employment legislation, further detail on many of the policies in the Employment Rights Bill will be provided through regulations, and in some cases codes of practice, after Royal Assent. We expect to begin further consultations on these reforms in 2025, seeking significant input from all stakeholders, and anticipate that most reforms will take effect no earlier than 2026.
As outlined in “Next Steps to Make Work Pay”, there are also commitments in the plan to make work pay that we will deliver via existing powers and non-legislative routes, as well as those which will take longer to undertake and implement. We will begin consulting on some of these measures before the end of the year, including launching a call for evidence on tightening the ban on unpaid internships. The Government continue to work closely with stakeholders to ensure that they can plan their contributions to calls for evidence and consultations as they arise.
[HCWS146]
The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
I am pleased to announce that today, 14 October, I have published a Green Paper setting out our plans to deliver “Invest 2035: The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy”.
Growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government. Our vision for a modern industrial strategy is for a credible, 10-year plan to drive sustainable, inclusive and resilient growth and deliver the certainty and stability businesses need to invest across the UK. This is the only way to boost our productivity, reinvest in our public services, create high-quality jobs and ensure tangible impact in communities right across the UK.
The industrial strategy will ensure we can build on our significant and historic strengths—which are the foundations of a vibrant, global economy and position us well to seize the economic opportunities of the coming decade.
To unlock this growth, the strategy will focus on tackling barriers in our highest potential growth-driving sectors. In doing so, the industrial strategy will create a pro-business environment and support high-potential clusters across the country. It will also support our net zero, regional, and economic resilience and security aims. We are prepared to tackle the critical issues head-on and make the choices required to kickstart investment.
We must create a strong pro-business environment that supports businesses to thrive and grow. This industrial strategy will bring forward co-ordinated, sector-specific and cross-cutting policies that support businesses to overcome barriers and make it simpler and cheaper for companies to scale up and invest. These will be founded on four principles: long-term stability, renewing our commitment to free and fair trade, easing the investor journey, and being a strategic, growth-focused state. By considering and listening to businesses and experts, we can identify the most effective levers for our sectors—and clusters—across the country. These policy areas include people and skills, innovation, energy and infrastructure, the regulatory environment, crowding in investment, and international partnerships and trade.
Jobs will also be at the heart of our modern industrial strategy, supporting growth sectors to create high-quality, well paid jobs across the country, backed by employment rights fit for a modern economy. We must also be clear-eyed about the sectors which offer the highest growth opportunity for the economy and businesses, including where the UK has existing and nascent strengths. Our strategy will be ambitious and targeted, taking advantage of the UK’s unique strengths and untapped potential, enabling our world-leading sectors to adapt and grow, and seizing opportunities to lead in new sectors.
Over the last 25 years, roughly 60% of our productivity growth was generated by just 30% of our most productive industries. That is why our industrial strategy has identified eight key growth-driving sectors—advanced manufacturing, creative industries, clean energy industries, defence, digital and technologies, financial services, life sciences, and professional and business services—in which the UK excels today and will excel tomorrow. In the next stage of development of the industrial strategy, we will prioritise sub-sectors within these broad sectors that meet our objectives.
We must also ensure our growth unlocks the economic potential of the UK’s cities and regions, by tailoring policy to specific place-based constraints and opportunities. We will give mayors in England the tools they need to grow their economies and develop ambitious 10-year local growth plans. We will also work in partnership with the devolved Governments to make this industrial strategy a UK-wide effort. In doing so, we will explore how the industrial strategy can identify, select and intervene in the most important industrial sites and sectoral clusters across the UK, making them magnets for globally mobile investment.
But this strategy—and our ambitions—can only be realised in partnership. Too often, the impact of industrial strategies has been concentrated in certain regions and not shared across communities. Businesses tell us that past plans have been short-lived, and often business have felt they were done to, rather than with, them. We will engage widely through the development of this strategy, engaging businesses, trade unions, local and devolved leaders, academics, and international partners.
To underscore this approach, I am also very pleased to announce that we are launching the industrial strategy advisory council, and have appointed Clare Barclay, CEO of Microsoft UK, as chair. Ms Barclay brings a wealth of leadership experience at top-flight UK businesses across technology, innovation and artificial intelligence. Further members will be confirmed in due course, drawn from across business, academia and trade unions to provide a broad range of skills and expertise.
Through the Green Paper, the Government are seeking the views of businesses, stakeholders and parliamentarians to inform the continued development of our industrial strategy and ensure it delivers for people and communities across the UK. I would welcome your analysis and insight, as well as the views of businesses and others in your constituencies.
The industrial strategy and growth-driving sector plans will be published in spring 2025. I will keep Parliament informed as the industrial strategy, and industrial strategy advisory council, continue to develop. I am placing copies of the Green Paper in the Libraries of both Houses.
Reforms to company law
The UK has always been a great place for overseas companies to invest and do business. The Government are committed to taking steps to make the UK a place where foreign companies can easily relocate their incorporation. A UK re-domiciliation regime would increase the ease with which companies could move their place of incorporation to the UK, minimising costs and risks that could otherwise arise from the alternative routes and ensuring that the UK remains internationally competitive. Today, we have published a report by the independent expert panel on corporate re-domiciliation, established to consider how best to implement a framework in the UK. The Government welcome the panel’s report and intend to consult in due course on a proposed regime design. A copy of the report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
I can confirm that my Department will lay legislation by the end of the year that will save companies £240 million per year by removing redundant reporting requirements and uplifting the monetary size thresholds for micro-entities and small and medium-sized companies, as well as making technical fixes to the UK’s audit framework. The changes will benefit up to 132,000 companies who will move to a smaller size category, with lighter-touch accounting and reporting requirements more proportionate to their size. These changes are the first step toward modernising the UK’s reporting framework, so it is simpler and better for business, supporting the Government’s aim of having the highest sustained growth in the G7. My Department will also launch an ambitious consultation next year aimed at simplifying and modernising the UK’s non-financial reporting framework. Efforts to modernise will also include examining the potential for updating shareholder communication in line with technology and clarifying the law in relation to virtual annual general meetings.
The Government are also announcing their commitment to speeding up the process for raising share capital. The “Financing Growth” paper committed the Government to implementing the outstanding recommendations from the “Secondary Capital Raising Review”, published in 2022. The changes will be welcomed by business and shareholders and will speed up and simplify the process for companies raising new share capital, for example by reducing from 10 to seven working days the minimum time in which a company must offer new shares to existing shareholders before offering them to the wider market.
[HCWS126]
Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
Today, the Department for Business and Trade launches the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation. OTSI is a new unit equipped with enhanced powers to strengthen the implementation and enforcement of trade sanctions. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the UK imposed sanctions against Russia on an unprecedented scale. These sanctions have deprived Russia of more than $400 billion since February 2022. On one estimate, that is equivalent to four more years of funding for the invasion. The creation of OTSI will help ensure that the UK’s trade sanctions regimes have maximum impact.
The Trade, Aircraft and Shipping Sanctions (Civil Enforcement) Regulations 2024, which come into force on 10 October 2024, grant OTSI new civil enforcement powers, which complement His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ existing powers to enforce trade sanctions. While HMRC continues to be responsible for enforcement in relation to goods and technology that cross the UK border, OTSI will lead on the enforcement of:
the provision or procurement of sanctioned services;
moving, making available, or acquiring sanctioned goods outside the UK (where a UK person is involved);
transferring, making available or acquiring sanctioned technology outside the UK (where a UK person is involved);
providing ancillary services to the movement, making available or acquisition of sanctioned goods outside the UK (where a UK person is involved); and
providing ancillary services to the transfer, making available or acquisition of sanctioned technology outside the UK (where a UK person is involved).
The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation in HM Treasury remains responsible for enforcement of the oil price cap, alongside its implementation of financial sanctions.
With this new enforcement toolkit, OTSI can impose civil monetary penalties and has powers to request, share, and publish information about sanctions breaches. There are also new reporting obligations for financial services, money services businesses and legal service providers. These will help OTSI to detect and investigate suspected breaches.
A key part of ensuring UK sanctions are effective is improving compliance. As well as tackling breaches when they occur, OTSI is being established to help UK businesses comply with their obligations under UK trade sanctions, through engagement with industry and by providing information and guidance. OTSI will also deliver the sanctions licensing function for stand-alone services, including professional and business services.
The Department for Transport will lead on civil enforcement in relation to aircraft and shipping sanctions. The Trade, Aircraft and Shipping Sanctions (Civil Enforcement) Regulations 2024 also confer powers on the Secretary of State for Transport to request and share information, impose a civil monetary penalty, and to publish information about a breach of aircraft or shipping sanctions where a penalty has, or could have been, imposed. The legislation also places obligations on certain persons to report known or suspected breaches to DFT.
The UK’s sanctions framework was severely tested by the unprecedented scale and scope of the sanctions we have imposed on Russia since 2022. This step change in how we use sanctions revealed areas which required further strengthening, including the need for civil enforcement powers for certain trade sanctions breaches. This Government are committed to maximising the effectiveness of UK sanctions, including through significantly strengthening our sanctions enforcement tools. Launching OTSI and equipping it, and DFT, with an enhanced enforcement toolkit demonstrates that commitment.
[HCWS121]
Plan to Make Work Pay and Employment Rights Bill
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
Delivering the Government’s Plan to Make Work Pay—Introduction of the Employment Rights Bill
The plan to make work pay sets out a significant and ambitious agenda to ensure workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people, and contribute to economic growth. Today, the Government are fulfilling the manifesto commitment to bring forward legislation within 100 days of entering office by introducing the Employment Rights Bill.
Upgrading the UK labour market so it is fit for our modern economy is a key step to kickstarting economic growth, alongside other planks of our modern supply side approach, including planning reform, kickstarting a skills revolution, a modern industrial strategy and a plan to tackle inactivity. The Bill will support the Government’s mission to increase productivity and create the right conditions for long-term sustainable, inclusive, and secure economic growth by giving the British public the work, wages, prosperity, security, dignity, and the living standards that everyone in Britain needs and deserves. This is a comprehensive Bill which, once implemented, will represent the biggest upgrade in employment rights for a generation. It will raise the minimum floor of employment rights, raise living standards across the country and provide better support for those businesses who are engaged in good practices.
Benefits of the Employment Rights Bill
This is a pro-worker, pro-business plan. The Government will tackle head-on the issues within the UK labour market that are holding Britain back. The plan to make work pay sets out a vision for modern and fair employment protections that will set the country up for the future.
Supporting families
Many businesses already provide good, family-friendly conditions for their workers because they know that doing so improves productivity, morale, and retention. This Bill will increase the baseline set of rights for employees with parental or other caring responsibilities, enabling more working parents to get on at work, and achieve a better work-life balance—whether that is raising children, improving their own wellbeing, or looking after a loved one with a long-term health condition. Businesses will gain too where this boosts increased workforce participation, helping employers fill vacancies. Measures will increase the likelihood of a request for flexible working arrangements to be granted, introduce day one entitlement to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave, and introduce a statutory entitlement to bereavement leave.
Despite existing protections, we know it is not always a level playing field, and too many women are being held back at work. By expanding gender pay gap reporting requirements, requiring large employers to produce action plans on how to address their gender pay gaps and support employees through the menopause, and strengthening rights for pregnant workers and new mothers, this Bill will put gender equality front and centre of our employment legislation. These measures will support women’s employment participation and tackle the gender pay gap.
Improving rights and addressing one-sided flexibility
Too many workers experience low-paid, insecure and poor-quality work. This Government believe that all workers should be able to enjoy fair rights, benefits and security in the workplace, no matter who they work for. The Government intend to support businesses so they are no longer undercut by those with low standards. By introducing day one protection from unfair dismissal (while allowing employers to operate probation periods), increasing protection from sexual harassment in the workplace, ending unscrupulous fire and rehire and fire and replace practices, strengthening rights and requirements for collective redundancy consultation, and banning exploitative zero hours contracts, we will raise the bar for workers and provide a baseline of security in work. The plan to make work pay sets out a vision for better, modernised, and fairer employment protections that will set the country up for the future.
Improving take home pay and conditions at work
We have already made progress in championing fair pay by changing the Low Pay Commission’s remit to take into account the cost of living for the first time. The Bill will go further, introducing powers to create a fair pay agreement in the adult social care sector, and reinstating the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. We will also be reinstating and strengthening the two-tier code for public sector contracts, helping ensure that employees working on outsourced contracts will be offered terms and conditions no less favourable to those transferred from the public sector. We will strengthen statutory sick pay, removing the lower earnings limit to make it available to all employees, and removing the waiting period so that SSP is paid from the first day of sickness absence.
A better enforcement system
While the vast majority of employers champion the spirit of good business and workers’ rights, some fall short. By bringing together the various agencies and enforcement bodies that enforce employment rights into the new Fair Work Agency, we will ensure that where employers are not doing what is right, a simplified and strengthened enforcement system will protect workers and ensure justice in the workplace.
Voice at work
This Government believe that workers should have a voice at work, and trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, and low pay. That is why this Bill will focus on strengthening the rights of trade union representatives and bring archaic and prohibitive trade union legislation into the 21st century. We are bringing forward multiple measures to protect workers from dismissal and blacklisting for trade union activity, ensure workers understand their right to join a trade union, to simplify the statutory recognition process, and to bring in a new right of access for union officials to meet, represent, recruit, and organise members in workplaces. As previously announced, we will repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and the Trade Union Act 2016.
The plan to make work pay was developed through close engagement with business and trade unions, and we are committed to continuing with this approach through full and comprehensive consultation on the implementation of the plan.
Next steps to make work pay
The Government are committed to implementing their plan to make work pay in full. Not all the commitments within make work pay require primary legislation to implement; in many areas the Government have existing powers to deliver on commitments through secondary legislation and non-legislative means. In addition, the Government have been clear that some parts of the plan will take longer to review and implement. In order to provide Parliament, workers and business clarity on how Government intend on delivering on the plan, we are today publishing the “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” paper. This sets direction and gives businesses and workers confidence in our long-term programme of work. Work is already under way to prepare consultations on several aspects of the plan.
As is typical with employment legislation, further detail on many of the policies in the Bill will be provided through regulations after Royal Assent. We expect to begin consulting on these reforms in 2025, seeking significant input from all stakeholders, and anticipate this meaning that the majority of reforms will take effect no earlier than 2026. Reforms of unfair dismissal will take effect no sooner than autumn 2026. We will continue working with partners right up to implementation. Advice and support will be available to businesses to support this.
The Government will continue to work hand in hand on these changes with business, trade unions and civil society in a spirit of partnership to get Britain moving again.
[HCWS117]
Late Payments and Long Payment Terms
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
Late payments and long payment terms continue to be a significant issue for small businesses and the self-employed across the UK. In 2022, small businesses were owed on average an estimated £22,000 in late payments from the businesses they supply. As well as the direct costs to businesses through lost and late revenue, there are also indirect costs, which include a reduction in productivity through lost time chasing late payments and forgoing investment and growth opportunities. We are determined to foster a strong payment culture in the UK by bringing the payment performance and behaviour of large companies more clearly into focus.
Therefore, we are announcing that we will lay secondary legislation in this parliamentary Session to make it a requirement for large companies to include information about their payment performance in their annual reports.
This measure will help increase transparency around the payment practices of large businesses and bring them into focus for boards and investors.
Introducing secondary legislation however only represents our first step. The Department for Business and Trade will also launch a public consultation within months on additional legislative measures to address late payments and long payment terms. We will take action as needed to ensure improvements in payment times, especially for small businesses and the self-employed.
We will also be launching a new fair payment code to be overseen by the Small Business Commissioner—a voluntary code of best practice for companies committed to fair and fast payments. This will replace the existing Prompt Payment Code, with a clearer and more measurable set of ambitious commitments and will be a further lever to improve the UK’s business payment culture by shining a light on the best performers.
Secondary legislation has also been laid today to amend the Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations 2017 and the Limited Liability Partnerships (Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance) Regulations 2017, to require qualifying companies and LLPs to publish certain information on their practices, policies and performance with respect to retention clauses in any qualifying construction contracts with suppliers. This measure will help increase transparency around retention policies and performance, and encourage improved payment practices.
This package demonstrates this Government’s determination to tackle the scourge of late payments, meeting the commitments laid out in our manifesto and plan for small business.
These initiatives will ensure more businesses are paid on time—ultimately increasing productivity, improving cash flow and driving growth.
[HCWS106]
Tata Steel and UK Steel Strategy
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
The Government have secured an improved deal for the workers impacted by the transformation plans of Tata Steel and are setting out their ambition for a new UK-wide steel strategy, one which equips our steel-making industry with the right support to adapt and thrive in the new green economy.
I can announce today that we have agreed a process with Tata to assess investment opportunities for new capabilities that will deliver more, secure, long-term jobs than the deal that we inherited. I will report back to the House on progress.
Tata Steel has agreed to offer a comprehensive training programme for up to 500 employees as an alternative for those at risk of compulsory redundancy. This would be on full pay for one month, then £27,000 per annum per employee for 11 months. Tata will fund those costs. Employees will be able to choose from recognised qualifications to develop sought-after skills which will be in high demand in the local economy now and long into the future.
Tata also expects that at least 500 new jobs could be created during the construction of the electric arc furnace, which will tap into the local labour market wherever possible.
The Government have helped to secure improved terms for those at risk of redundancy by working closely with unions.
Tata Steel’s employees are now able set out their expression of interest in the most generous voluntary redundancy package the company has ever offered for a restructuring of this size. Employees will now be paid 2.8 weeks of earnings for each year of service up to a maximum of 25 years.
There is also a minimum redundancy payment of £15,000 pro-rata and a “retention” payment of £5,000 for employees leaving the business because of these closures. Over 2,000 employees have expressed interest in voluntary redundancy on these terms.
As part of the deal, the company will also be releasing 385 acres of their site for sale or transfer. This is valuable real estate which will help bring in more companies and more employers not just from the steel sector but from a whole host of other industries too.
Taxpayers should know the improved terms for workforce are not dependent on additional money.
Strong conditions are included within the grant funding agreement to claw back investment if Tata Steel reneges on its promises or fails to keep its end of the bargain. For example, there is now an improved grant repayment of £40,000 for every job Tata Steel does not retain post transformation. It was £30,000 per job under the previous deal. In the event of this condition being enacted, this money will be repaid directly to the Government—a powerful incentive to ensure Tata Steel meet its 5,000 UK jobs target.
The Government know this is the start of a journey towards a greener future for the steelworks in Port Talbot—reducing the site’s carbon emissions by as much as 85% a year. However, decarbonisation should not mean deindustrialisation. As part of the agreement the Government will be working with Tata Steel over the coming weeks and months to consider business cases for further investment and job creation opportunities.
However, the Government’s ambition for steel is so much bigger and broader than one single company. It is about the whole sector. The UK has always been a proud steelmaking nation, with a rich heritage stretching back to the industrial revolution. From cars to cranes, ships and scaffolding, British steel has been and is still used the world over, embodying our industrial might and innovation. For years, steel has been a neglected industry in this country. Crude steel production has declined by more than 50% in the last 10 years. Some proclaimed the industry’s decline to be inevitable in the 21st century, but this Government do not believe that decline is inevitable. While the industry faces challenges today, we want to do everything we can to ensure that it can adapt and grow tomorrow.
That is why I am pleased to announce that the Government will introduce a new steel strategy, which will be published in spring 2025.
Our manifesto announced £2.5 billion for steel, on top of the £500 million for this transformation at Port Talbot. Our intention is to use the money we are investing to increase our UK capabilities so that we can create a more vibrant, competitive steel sector in the UK.
As part of our steel strategy, this Government will look seriously at the options to improve steel capabilities across the whole supply chain, including for primary steelmaking in the UK. We are also clear that we will not be able to prioritise short-term subsidies over long-term jobs. That is why with the help of independent experts, we will also be reviewing the viability of direct reduced iron in the UK.
Steel is essential to delivering on our net zero goals and building the next generation of green infrastructure, which Members know this Government are passionate about. It is why, as part of our steel strategy, we intend to use the new procurement Act to drive economic growth and account for social value in the things Government buy and the projects we commission. This work is already under way to increase the role of steel as we build our manufacturing base.
This Government also recognise that for far too long British energy-intensive industries, including the steel sector, have been held back by high electricity costs. More often than not, this has made the UK less attractive to international investors. The Government’s clean energy mission will ensure we are no longer exposed to the kinds of gas price shocks we have seen in recent years, helping British businesses to compete and win in the global market. To support that ambition, we are also working with like-minded nations to tackle global trade distortions, including through our chairing of the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity this year.
The steel strategy will be developed and delivered in partnership with the steel sector and trade unions, and it will work in lockstep with the Government’s industrial strategy. The Government’s ambition is to ramp up investment, strengthen our supply chains and create more well-paid jobs in the places where they are most needed.
To drive our partnership on the steel strategy forward, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade will shortly meet with industry experts and interested parties to discuss the future of the industry.
This Government care about steel, the communities it supports and recognise its fundamental importance to the economy.
And supporting steel in this country is about being involved in the detail, shepherding individual plants into the future while protecting the people in them. But it is also about providing a direction of travel. An inspiration for investment and a cause for confidence, so that the sector can play its part in the next 10 years and beyond.
[HCWS87]
Port Talbot Transition Project
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the improved deal that this Labour Government have secured for the workers of Tata Steel, specifically as it relates to its plant in Port Talbot. As well as setting out the details of this improved deal, I am also announcing today our ambition for a new UK-wide steel strategy—one that equips our steelmaking industry with the right support not just to adapt but to thrive in the new green economy. But before I do so, I want to address the situation we have inherited.
Since becoming Secretary of State two months ago, I have had to respond to a series of challenges, not just with the steel industry but in shipping—such as at Harland & Wolff—and in other areas where the previous Government had simply ceased to make decisions and decided to leave them for us to deal with. That was a dereliction of duty and it has left the steel industry in particular in an extremely perilous position. The previous Government had been promising a plan for the steel industry for years. With what I am able to announce today—with the signing of a legally binding deal that enables Tata to order its electric arc furnace as part of a significantly improved package—this Government have made more progress in two months than they made over the previous Parliament. But if we had started these negotiations even a year ago—never mind years ago as they had the opportunity to do—I have no doubt that we would have secured an even better deal for the community.
So I start with an apology to the people of Port Talbot, because they were let down by the previous Government. While this deal is much improved, I acknowledge that it falls short of what would be my ideal. I have, however, been to Port Talbot several times and met the workforce there, along with the reps and the generations of families who have literally forged Port Talbot as we know it. That is why, when Tata first announced that it would be closing the blast furnaces, resulting in some 2,800 job losses, I knew that the workforce deserved so much better. I warned my predecessor not to proceed with what they had negotiated. Why? Because I was confident that the Government could secure a better deal: a better deal for Tata’s workers and a better deal for the people of Port Talbot. And I am able to announce today that this Government have secured that better deal, but I reiterate that if we had had the opportunity that the previous Government had over so many years we could have done more.
The key features are as follows. First, we have agreed a process with Tata to assess investment opportunities for new, additional capabilities that will deliver more secure, long-term jobs than the deal we inherited. This is on top of the plans for the instalment of the electric arc furnace. We have agreed a process with Tata to take this forward, and I will report back to the House on that progress. But this is the most important element, so I am announcing the deal now, rather than after the process is complete, because for Tata to secure the build slot for the electric arc furnace, that element needs to be sorted now. Further delays would put the whole project at risk and could lead to a much worse outcome.
Secondly, in every conversation I have had with Tata’s directors, I have stressed the need to avoid compulsory redundancies wherever possible. I have asked them to channel their efforts instead into job matching and retraining so that the steelworkers of Port Talbot, who have dedicated so much to the industry in the past, can now help shape its future as they will be able to transition and move within the business. As well as that, Tata is agreeing to offer a comprehensive training programme for any employee as an alternative for those at risk of compulsory redundancy. This would be on full pay for one month, then £27,000 a year per employee for 11 months. Tata will fund all those costs. Employees will be able to choose from recognised qualifications to develop sought-after skills that will be in high demand in the local economy now and long into the future. We know, too, that Tata expects that during the construction of the electric arc furnace at least 500 new jobs could be created, which will tap into the local labour market wherever possible.
Thirdly, where we cannot secure new jobs or training, working closely with the unions we have helped to secure improved terms on redundancies. Tata’s employees are now able to express an interest in the most generous voluntary redundancy package the company has ever offered for a restructuring of this size. Employees will now be paid 2.8 weeks of earnings for each year of service up to a maximum of 25 years. At the same time, we are ensuring that there is a minimum redundancy payment—£15,000 pro rata—and a retention payment of £5,000 for employees leaving the business because of these closures. Over 2,000 members of staff have expressed an interest in voluntary redundancy who will be eligible on these terms.
Fourthly, as part of the deal the company will also be releasing 385 acres of its site for sale or transfer. This is valuable real estate which will help bring in more companies and more employers not just from the steel sector but from a whole host of other industries too, helping to diversify the workforce at Port Talbot.
While Conservative Members told us that there was no alternative to the original proposal, we knew that there was, and we have bargained hard for it. And we are putting in watertight conditions within our grant funding agreement for job guarantees to claw back investment if these jobs do not materialise. For example, there is now an improved grant repayment of £40,000 for every job that is not retained post transformation. This money will be repaid directly to the Government and is a powerful incentive for Tata to deliver the 5,000 UK jobs target.
But our ambition for steel is so much bigger and broader than one single company: it is about the whole sector. The UK has always been a proud steelmaking nation, with a rich heritage stretching back to the industrial revolution. From cars to cranes to ships and scaffolding, British steel has been, and is still, used the world over, embodying our industrial might and innovation. Yet for years steel has been a neglected industry in this country. Crude steel production has declined by more than 50% in the last 10 years. Indeed, some proclaimed the industry’s decline would be inevitable in the 21st century—that it was somehow a sunset industry—but those people are wrong: we on this side of the House have never believed that decline is inevitable and while the industry faces challenges today we want to do everything we can to ensure that it can adapt and grow tomorrow.
That is why I am pleased to announce that we will introduce our new steel strategy. As hon. Members know, our manifesto included plans to make available £2.5 billion for steel, on top of the £500 million transformation of Port Talbot. Our intention is to increase our UK capabilities, something the previous Government never attempted, so that we can create a more vibrant and competitive steel sector in the UK.
As part of our steel strategy, this Government will look seriously at options to improve steel capabilities across the supply chain, including in primary steelmaking. We are clear that we cannot prioritise short-term subsidies over long-term jobs, which is why, with the help of independent experts, we will review the viability of technologies for production of primary steel, possibly including direct reduced iron.
Steel is essential to delivering on our net zero goals and building the next generation of green infrastructure, and I know that Labour Members are passionate about that. That is why, under our steel strategy, we intend to use the Procurement Act 2023 to drive economic growth and account for social value in the things that the Government buy and the projects we commission. Work is already under way to increase the role of steel as we build our manufacturing base.
We recognise that, for far too long, Britain’s energy-intensive industries, including the steel sector, have been held back by high electricity costs. More often than not, this has made the UK less attractive to international investors, but we will take action on that. Our clean energy mission will ensure that we are no longer exposed to the kinds of gas price shocks that we have seen in recent years, and that will help British businesses to compete and win in the global market. In support of that ambition, we are working with like-minded nations to tackle global trade distortions, including through our chairing of the global forum on steel excess capacity this year.
Our steel strategy will be developed and delivered in partnership with the steel sector and trade unions, and it will work in lockstep with the Government’s industrial strategy, which will set out our ambition to ramp up investment, strengthen our supply chains and create more well-paid jobs in the places where they are needed most. In order to drive forward our partnership on the steel strategy, I will shortly meet industry experts and interested parties for discussion on the industry’s future. We intend to publish the steel strategy in the spring of next year.
The Government care about steel and the communities it supports, and recognise steel’s fundamental importance to the economy. Supporting steel in this country is about being involved in the detail and shepherding individual plants into the future while protecting the people in them, but it is also about providing a direction of travel, an inspiration for investment and a cause for confidence, so that the sector can play its part in the next 10 years and beyond.
We are not naive about the scale of the challenge before us. Although the situation is still challenging, this is a better deal for Port Talbot than was on the table, and it is the maximum improvement we could make in two months. It represents a better destination and a better transition to the bright future that steel will have under this Government. I commend the statement to the House.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. I wish I could say that I am surprised by any of its content, but the media and the press have, of course, been relentlessly briefed on it over the last couple of days.
It is also no surprise that, once again, Labour is presiding over the demise of our steel sector. Output fell by 47% under the last Labour Government, and 56% of jobs were lost. Today’s deal means that 100% of output will go at Port Talbot. An electric arc furnace will take five years at best to get up and running; some suggest that it will be eight to nine years before a single new job is created, if we see any new jobs at all. As the statement says, this is a transition, but it is a heartbreaking transition for thousands of people—a transition from being in work to being out of work. In his discussions with Tata, why did the Secretary of State not take steps to ensure that the blast furnace will not be closed before the new electric arc furnace opens? Is this not the New Labour playbook—scrap jobs, scrap production and become reliant on higher-polluting countries for imports? That is not what I call decarbonisation. I must say, I feel a little sorry for the Secretary of State, who has been dispatched here to announce these spending decisions just a day after Labour’s day of shame on winter fuel cuts for pensioners.
In government, the Conservatives provided a grant of £500 million towards the £1.25 billion invested by Tata Steel, one of the largest support packages in the government’s history. At the time of the last Government’s announcement, that support was expected to save at least 5,000 jobs in the company. We worked with the Welsh Government and Tata Steel to establish a dedicated transition board to support affected employees and the local economy, backed by £100 million in total. Will the Secretary of State provide an update on any of those job projections?
Today’s announcement is notable for the absence of any reassurance or plans for the thousands of steelworkers in Scunthorpe who may not have jobs by Christmas. Equally notable is the Government’s failure, once again, to provide any detail on the domestic production of virgin steel. The Secretary of State says that we will have a steel strategy in the spring, but thousands of jobs, along with production capacity, have been scrapped today.
It was no surprise that last week, during the urgent question on steel, four times, the Minister for Industry failed to commit to safeguarding the future of virgin steel production in this country. I am sure that the Secretary of State does not need reminding that if he allows the Scunthorpe works to close, too, we will be the only G7 country unable to produce virgin steel. That leaves us open and vulnerable to cheap foreign imports, particularly from China. To his credit, he has always argued against offshoring our steel industry. He conceded once that it would be a “fundamental political mistake”. What conversations has he had with the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Defence about the impact of the Government’s new steel policy on our national security and ability to deliver infrastructure? Will he assure the House that he is doing everything in his power to ensure that we do not lose virgin steel manufacturing in the United Kingdom?
For the benefit of new colleagues, the Government, when in opposition, were committed to £28 billion a year of borrowing to fund their decarbonisation plans—a price tag that has magically disappeared, although the target has not. The Secretary of State made promises about that to the steel industry, but where are those promises now? Where is that money? Is he still battling the Chancellor? We know that Labour’s unions are quite successful in squeezing money from the Treasury, so maybe he can send them to stand up to the Chancellor if he is having problems.
The Government have our support in ensuring that the future of steelmaking in this country is sustainable. That goes beyond Tata and South Wales. Only in Labour’s world can the word “improved” mean fewer jobs and higher-polluting imports. When he returns to the Dispatch Box, I hope the Secretary of State will do better for UK steelmaking.
Jonathan Reynolds
I have been a Member of Parliament for 14 years, in which I have seen some interesting political events, but I do not think I have ever heard a contribution with such brass neck. That is quite something, because there is quite a menu to choose from.
Let me explain what I was doing during polling week, in the lead up to 4 July. Parliament was not sitting, and I was shadow Secretary of State. I was going between key seats, as would be expected, negotiating with unions, Tata, my colleagues in the Welsh Government and every relevant body to prevent action that would have resulted in the entire closure of the Port Talbot works on polling day. It was as though the Government had already gone; they were not on the pitch. The first thing I had to do, before I even became Secretary of State, was ensure that there was something there to save, because it would have gone under the Conservative party. [Interruption.] Conservative Members really need to listen, because my contributions are factually accurate, and I will help them to understand the real situation.
The point of the new investment is to save jobs. There will be better terms for the people who are unable to get the new jobs, including better cushioning during their retraining for entry into the rest of the economy. I have explained why it is a better deal, as I hope the shadow Minister has seen. He mentioned media reports; they have not come from my Department, but I appreciate that there were lots of interested parties. The unions and the Welsh Labour Government recognise that this is a better deal. I hope that the Conservative party recognises, on taking a step back from the statement, why the deal will make such a difference.
The shadow Minister mentioned virgin steel. Let me talk about my frustration about that. He will understand that the two blast furnace sites, Scunthorpe and Port Talbot, lose a great deal of money every day. The managers are so fed up with the lack of action under the last Government that they have put timescales on their closure. The simple truth is that I do not have the timeframe that was available to the Conservative party. Moreover, when it comes to Scunthorpe, I do not yet have the carbon capture infrastructure in place that will be necessary for the ideal solution. I would love to be a position to look at the hybrid solution that the shadow Minister put forward—keeping the blast furnaces open while we bring the electric arc furnaces online—but all the time that could have been used to work on that was during the Conservative Government, and they did not do that work. There are therefore far fewer options available to us, and the situation is far more challenging.
Since I became Secretary of State, I have had many meetings with the UK management about Scunthorpe, and have had three meetings, I believe, with Mr Li, the principal shareholder. I also met him when I was shadow Secretary of State. We have been clear that we want a transition in Scunthorpe, and want to put up Government money alongside what the company may offer, but that has to be part of a transition to the future. The workforce and the route that is offered to them has to be part of that.
Even if we are successful in doing that, my frustration is that the options available are very difficult for the area. The solution I would ideally deliver, which could have been delivered by the Conservatives in those 14 long years, is not available. When Conservative Members leave the Chamber today, I hope they reflect on the mistakes they made, their lack of action, the legacy they bequeathed us and, fundamentally, the improvements we have been able to make in such a short time.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I say to Members, especially senior Members, that when they speak facing the opposite direction from where I am sitting, I cannot hear what they say? Please, speak towards the Chair. That is how we keep neutrality working as well.
Jonathan Reynolds
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are not just seeking to deliver new, improved transition deals for the key sites, but want to improve the overall business and investor environment for steel in the UK. I believe that can be done. The kind of investments in core capacities that we are thinking about could be very successful in the United Kingdom. Obviously, two months is insufficient for the due diligence that is required on some of the elaborate and considered business cases necessary, but the process is about delivering that. We can turn this into an extremely positive story for UK steel.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Steelmaking is of vital strategic importance to the UK. We need it to build the crucial infrastructure necessary to generate sustainable growth and safeguard our national security. The neglect of the steel industry in recent years is just another part of the previous Government’s disastrous legacy.
Today’s announcement is a welcome sign of change. The steps the Government have outlined to help protect jobs and, crucially, to develop a steel strategy are long overdue. We need to finally move on from a patchwork of last-minute rescues to a long-term plan that will set the industry on a sustainable footing. This is true of the steel industry and across our economy. We desperately need a real industrial strategy that works in tandem with this plan for steel.
Will the Secretary of State assure us that his steel strategy will be fully aligned with a wider industrial strategy, and will take a view on steel’s importance to our economy and society as a whole? Will it aim to balance the need for infrastructure, national security and net zero commitments? Will he assure us that he will bring the strategy to this House by spring next year for scrutiny and debate, so that the industry can finally move on with certainty?
Jonathan Reynolds
I very much welcome the hon. Member’s words and her recognition of the improvements that we have made with this deal. Fundamentally, we have recognised the need for a better business environment, moving away from relatively short-term responses to that much better, more secure long-term framework. She will understand that the significant increase in investment that this new Government are willing to make can make a substantial difference. However, the emphasis must be on long-term investments for the future, so that we can secure those long-term secure jobs. There are several different ways that we can do that. I absolutely agree that our method should be aligned with the industrial strategy, and we will be able to make some announcements on that in the near future, leading up to the launch of the steel strategy next year.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
That is incredibly gracious of you, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.] I think your words were heard across the Chamber.
May I welcome the Secretary of State to his place, and underline the importance of his commitment and the strength of his negotiation? I add my voice to those who talk about the importance of public procurement, but may I draw his attention to the carbon border adjustment mechanism? As I understand it, we have a disadvantage in this area because of how the mechanism was established in the UK. It is due to be introduced on 1 January 2027, which is later than in the EU, clearly disadvantaging our UK producers. Will he update the House on what he plans to do in that area?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and to you, Mr Speaker, for your very skilful introduction. He is right to talk about that wider business environment, and specifically asks about the carbon border adjustment mechanism. We have inherited this situation of the UK being out of line with the EU. Obviously, because our carbon prices are lower, there is a potential carbon barrier to UK exports to the single market. I can tell him that we are looking at that. The carbon border adjustment mechanism is a key part of a wider policy environment that must deliver decarbonisation, which is not deindustrialisation. We must recognise that the current policy environment is not doing that in the way that any of us would want.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I listened to the statement from the Secretary of State with interest. Will he specifically say, first, when the strategy will be published and brought to this House? Secondly, what level of Government investment will be behind the strategy? Thirdly, what assurances can he give to steelworkers across England—at Port Talbot and Scunthorpe in particular—that their jobs will not be put at risk because of steel being dumped in the UK from China?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for her questions. We will see the strategy in spring next year and the resources behind it, including the existing Government allocation for Port Talbot and the new money that the Government will put in. It is a £3 billion clean steel fund, so it is a significant investment. Obviously, I want a certain amount of return from that. I want to work with private sector partners. The kind of capital expenditure that is involved in the transition to green steel requires very significant partners who can deliver. It is not just a question of the Government doing this alone, and I think hon. Members recognise that. Steel safeguards are important. The right hon. Lady will know that steel is a significant part of the existing Trade Remedies Authority protections, many of which relate to China, but not exclusively so, and we keep them under regular review.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for today’s announcement and for reminding us of the role that steel plays in our green transition. He has done more in two months than the Conservatives did in 14 years. Many of my constituents in Monmouthshire, especially in Caldicot and Chepstow, work in the steel supply chain and in steel. Does he recognise that his announcement today has ramifications for the whole of south Wales?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend very much for her question. Let me say again that I wish that we were in a position to do even more, but I can tell hon. Members that this is the maximum improvement that was possible within two months. I know that in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s people are seeking more than anything else a recognition that steel is not a sunset industry. It is vital to the future; it is not the case that it should be in inevitable decline in the UK. Indeed, we are an outlier in terms of the size of our steel industry among comparable G7 and OECD countries. This could be and should be a very positive story, and I am honestly confident that we can deliver that in future.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman mentions procurement, and over countless years we have had statements and new strategies for steelmaking. Will he set out his plans to secure a long-term order book for steelmaking in this country, so that investors can make sure that they get value for money as well as the taxpayer? Equally, how will he endeavour to use the public purse to purchase British steel, while at the same time encouraging the export of British steel to other parts of the world?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question and very much agree with him. As the shadow Secretary of State, I avidly read the statistics that the Department published about UK content in domestic steel procurement. We must recognise that it is usually relatively high, but only in the sectors where we are producing particular grades of steel. Part of the strategy has to look at future demand, not just for what we already produce, but in terms of gaps and business opportunities. If we are improving the business environment, we need not just to help incumbent producers in the United Kingdom transition, but bring in new entrants, creating more competition in the market. I can see that there is significant demand in the market. It is the market that is driving the demand for green steel. I have no concerns about the future order book; it is the business environment taking advantage of that demand that this strategy needs to address.
Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for all his hard work in recent months. It is clear that the delays in the negotiations have had a very real cost. When I was visiting Port Talbot on Friday, what the workers and the management wanted to know was whether those delays had now come to an end. Can he reassure the House that we will do everything we can to make sure that the construction does now get going on the future of this plant?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for recently visiting the site to speak to management and the workforce. He is right about the understandable level of concern in the workforce. Obviously, that is often speculated on in the media, and there is a huge amount of interest in it. I made this statement today because of the need to proceed with part of the plan, and not to lose everything entirely. I also wanted to be able to answer questions such as his and to make it clear that the Government’s manifesto commitment to the steel transition fund forms part of a wider ambition, a coherent strategy, for the future of steel across every part of the UK.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
The loss of virgin steel production in Wales is a serious economic blunder that will devastate the community of Port Talbot. Unions have previously called for additional investment of £683 million in Port Talbot to save jobs. Meanwhile, Germany has invested €1.3 billion in decarbonising steel in one region alone this year. Can the Secretary of State explain why he will not match the ambition of the workers here and Governments of other countries to save Welsh steel?
Jonathan Reynolds
The levels of ambition and resource that we have as a new Government are actually greater than the figures that the hon. Lady has just given. To do the work that she describes requires a private sector partner. The Government cannot alone meet the capital expenditure needs. Indeed, to be successful it is better to work with a private sector partner to deliver that. Having a partner to retain virgin steel production is part of what the strategy will be able to address. If I had a partner willing to keep blast furnaces open, I would be very interested in that. However, I do not want to spend this very large sum of money in our clean steel fund on subsidising operating losses for one or two years, which would eat up most of that £3 billion and leave us with nothing at the end of it. I want to co-invest with the private sector for good, secure, long-term jobs, which are much in demand. She is right to say that other European countries have been way ahead of the UK in the past few years, but the level of ambition from this Government not only matches that among some of those European competitors but exceeds it.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the workforce and their unions about this improved deal?
Jonathan Reynolds
The answer is a great many, as my hon. Friend will understand. I have always been conscious not just of the specific impact on the workforce at Port Talbot, but of the fact that some of the big industrial transitions of the past in the United Kingdom, in the north-east of England where I grew up, were not handled well. I think people recognise that. I thought that the previous Government’s levelling-up strategy was a recognition of the long-term damage that was done in the late ’80s and early ’90s by that transition. Getting that right, and showing the workforce that this is a Government who care, have always been paramount. I have been to Port Talbot several times. I last met the community reps a week ago, and was able to have frank conversations with them. In everything that I have said, and will continue to say, I recognise that we wish that we were in a position to do more, but within the parameters of what we had and where we almost were, in terms of the entire loss of the site, I am confident that this is the biggest improvement that was possible in two months. We will always work with them to ensure that we are getting everything that we can for the site.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The wholesale price of electricity in this country is already pretty much the highest in Europe, and it will probably get worse as we shift towards renewables, with the possibility of outages and intermittency. That means that electric arc furnaces will become more expensive. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that suppliers do not, perfectly legitimately, turn to China for its virgin steel, produced in dirty blast furnaces?
Jonathan Reynolds
The right hon. Gentleman will know that this has long been a campaigning issue of mine. I have talked repeatedly about the relationship between decarbonisation and the potential for deindustrialisation, and the policy environment in this country not being fit for purpose to deliver that. On the wholesale electricity prices of energy-intensive industries, for most of the time under the previous Government the UK’s prices were wildly uncompetitive. There was some movement, as he knows, with the supercharger policy near the end. More can be done, and there is an even more exciting longer-term position that we could get to. He will have to wait for the Budget, and maybe the spending review, for some more detail on that, but this issue has to be an essential priority for the competitiveness of the UK. We have to recognise that a lot of the industries that we will transition to are very heavy users of electricity—not just clean steel, but for instance gigafactories. This will be a key tool in the future that we have to do better on than we have in the past 14 years.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this improved deal. I know how hard he has worked over many years, not just in the short term before and since the election, as he referred to in his answer to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). On procurement, will there be a presumption in favour of using British-produced steel both in nationally significant projects in green energy and in defence? That would be in stark contrast to what the previous Government did, in particular with the fleet solid support contract.
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for all his support during our years in opposition, when we tackled many of these issues. He asks about procurement. Of course, anything that we do as a Government will be consistent with international trade rules and our commitment to open markets and multilateralism. There is a legitimate way in which social value can be considered in Government procurement. Given the value and quality of what we produce in the UK, I am very confident in procurement playing a bigger part in the future of the steel industry. On defence and the blast furnaces, he will know that neither Scunthorpe nor Port Talbot plays a direct role in some of the key Ministry of Defence contracts. Sheffield Forgemasters plays more of a role in that. There are more capacities and capabilities that we can look to as a country for opportunities in the future.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The truth is—and the country needs to know this—that the thousands of jobs and the loss of the blast furnaces announced today is because of both main parties’ obsession with net zero. The reality is that blast furnaces have been losing money because of high energy costs caused by very expensive renewable energy, but we are where we are. In the event that Tata does not build the electric arc furnaces that are being promised, will the Secretary of State guarantee the House that the taxpayers’ money will be returned to the taxpayer?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am afraid that the hon. Member is misinformed as to what this is about. The issue is that these sites lose approximately £1 million a day. They have done so for a long time, and the owners are fed up and want to know that there will be a plan for the future. The role of the Government is to make that future better than it would otherwise be were we not on the pitch delivering it. There are issues around the competitive cost of industrial electricity in the UK, but they are not the issues that he says.
On the guarantee that he seeks, he will have heard my statement. The contractual terms of the grant funding arrangement include that clawback capacity, not just for the overall project but even down to the number of jobs retained. Those are the kind of job guarantees that I want in the public-private relationship going forward.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to introducing a new steel strategy. Steel is not a sunset industry; it is critical for our economy and national security. I know that he is a friend of Teesside. Will he give us some clarity on the status of discussions around investment in steel in Teesside at the moment?
Jonathan Reynolds
My hon. Friend is right to make that point. We cannot say enough that this is not a sunset industry; it should have a bright future. We can get this right. On the negotiations, my hon. Friend will know what I have already said about the conversations with British Steel. It is a very challenging issue. We have made it clear that the Government are there to play a part, and we obviously want that to be part of a transition. We have made that as clear as can be. As soon as I have further information, I will update the House.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As a supporter of industrial strategy, I welcome the idea of a steel strategy in the future, but I will ask a couple of specific questions on the detail. First, is it the Government’s policy that the domestic manufacture of primary steel is a strategic industry that must be protected and guaranteed? What do the Government intend to do about the sourcing, either domestically or through the import of coking coal? Earlier, he seemed to suggest that he would not intervene to support British Steel in Scunthorpe. Can he confirm that, if we lose that capacity, we may go five, six or seven years without steel manufacture in this country?
Jonathan Reynolds
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for industrial strategy. I have said many times that there should be, as there is in many countries, cross-party agreement—perhaps not on the detail, but on the premise and what we are trying to achieve. He asks about domestic manufacture and the blast furnaces remaining open. That is of course my preference, but I need a business partner—a company that is willing to do that. I do not think that it would be reasonable to spend the very considerable sum of money that we have pledged on subsidising short-term losses rather than on the ability to deliver new things. He also asks about coking coal. Obviously, that depends on the long-term future of the blast furnaces. That is what they need.
In relation to British Steel, I want a transition plan. My comments earlier were about my frustration that, for me, the ideal deal in a place like Scunthorpe would have been to build the future alongside operating what we currently have. That was available to the last Government; they did not proceed with it. The kind of infrastructure needed for the long-term future of operating blast furnaces would require carbon capture and storage. It was cancelled many times by the previous Government, and is not there. I am heavily constrained in my options, but I am still doing everything that I can to get a deal for the workforce, and to ensure that there is a business there that commands the support of its customers to transition in the future.
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on announcing the steel strategy after such a short period in office. The industry has been crying out for it for a very long time. The Conservative party failed the industry by not producing it. Will he say a bit more about what he hopes the strategy can achieve for the steel industry throughout the UK, in particular in Motherwell in my constituency?
Jonathan Reynolds
There are future opportunities, particularly from renewables, some of the steels that will be necessary in the automotive sector, and some of the new technologies that are being taken up around other European countries. There is particular excitement about direct reduced iron. How we deliver the business environment, hopefully with new and existing partners, is absolutely key. I hope that that is what the strategy will deliver.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which shows the priority that the Government are giving steel, in direct contrast with the previous Government, who had absolutely no industrial strategy—it was a real cheek of the shadow Minister to suggest otherwise earlier. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the plans for Llanwern? Its dedicated workforce has been through hard times recently. With support, Llanwern can turn into the finest automotive finishing line in the world. Will he commit to developing that and to safeguarding the future of the plant?
Jonathan Reynolds
I say again that had the election not been called, a statement such as this would not have been not possible. It would have passed us by; that was the situation that we faced. My hon. Friend rightly talks with pride about her constituents at Llanwern, which is an incredibly important and successful part of the industrial supply chain in the United Kingdom. I will ensure, as part of the transition, that the downstream functions, which are so valuable and praised, and which carry such respect in the industry, are protected, and that the transition plan does not disrupt the business model, which is, again, proof of the sector’s success and of future opportunities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement, and I welcome his endeavours, which I think we all recognise, to create firm foundations for the sector as it moves forward. I also recognise his commitment to Harland & Wolff, to which he referred. That is indeed great news, not just for workers but for the construction sector in Northern Ireland. However, the steel industry faces the problem of affordable energy, which he mentioned in his introduction. Will he safeguard the long-term sustainability of that and other industries by immediately addressing the energy price crisis and implementing the necessary long-term green energy fixes?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for his support for what we have announced. Having a competitive environment is an absolutely key issue. I am already having extensive conversations with the Chancellor and key Cabinet colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, about the way to do that not just in the short term but in the longer term, when we will clearly have a significant renewable energy base. There are a lot of exciting options available, including in how we use some of that capacity in areas of low consumer demand. I can tell him that that is a key priority for getting this right in future.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the deal that he has announced. As a former British trade commissioner to India, I assure him that it is a better deal from a better and more serious Government than the Conservative Government. Will he tell the House what direct conversations he has had with Tata about future investments in the UK?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although I know that the workforce has, at times, been frustrated by Tata’s plans, I understand why Tata itself was frustrated by the previous Government and how long it took to do the deal. In opposition, I had extensive conversations with Tata to build the kind of relationship that has been necessary to deliver something like this. I met executive chair Chandra at Davos and then flew to Mumbai, as colleagues may remember, to build that relationship. I also saw him yesterday, alongside the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, because he was in the United Kingdom. We are continuing those conversations and working with all partners to deliver the kind of opportunities that we think will be available in the UK in future.