Salisbury Incident
Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Stephen Kinnock(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Well, that is the position. I have read out the position pretty clearly. It is the second time I have done so. I say to the Security Minister: we worked in a consensual way on the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill and I hope that we can continue to do that in our response to this terrible incident and send out a very clear message that we are united in the measures that need to be taken to keep our country safe.
The expulsion of the diplomats has already been mentioned in the discussion in this House. They were identified by the Prime Minister as undeclared intelligence officers. This also led to the amendment of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill that—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will continue the point.
There are increasing checks on private flights, customs and freight, and the development of new legislation to tackle hostile state activity. The Security Minister will be aware that we have been discussing that throughout the passage of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill. Indeed, I and the shadow Home Secretary both voted in favour of the Bill on Third Reading last night. As the Security Minister well knows, we of course have reservations about a number of things—some of them we have resolved, and some I hope to resolve before the Bill appears in the other place—but both I and the shadow Home Secretary voted in favour of the principle of updating our laws and of providing protections against hostile state activity. I will come back to some of those measures.
Stephen Kinnock
If my hon. Friend is not going to say more about the Magnitsky amendment—[Interruption.] As he will be saying more about it, I will allow him to continue.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The suspense as I wait for my hon. Friend’s intervention is starting to overwhelm me, but I will continue.
The Opposition are of course pleased with the solidarity that has been forthcoming from the international community and with the action taken in support of the UK position. I again make it clear that we on these Benches will back any further reasonable and effective action—whether against Russia as a state or the GRU as an organisation. I now turn to those actions.
Following the poisoning of the Skripals, the Prime Minister promised in March to develop new legislative powers to harden defences against hostile state activity. The amendments, clauses and schedules to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill make particular provision on that. The Opposition believe in strong powers and strong safeguards, and we have sought to ensure that they are included during the passage of the Bill. The powers are now there. I hope and trust that they will go through the other place, come back to this House and get on to the statute book later in the year so that they can be used to deal with these types of situations.
In her September statement, the Prime Minister confirmed that, in addition to those border powers, the G7 have agreed to share intelligence pertaining to hostile state activity via a rapid response mechanism; that the EU has agreed a package to tackle hybrid threats; and that NATO has strengthened its collective deterrence via a new cyber-operations centre.
Cyber is obviously an important part of how we deal with this issue. I have visited GCHQ and seen some of the work that goes on. The Opposition will continue to make the case for that work to be appropriately funded and that the capacity must be there to act as we need to. America has also announced additional sanctions against Russia in the light of the Salisbury attack, and, as I said a moment ago, support from the international community to back UK action is welcome on both sides of the House.
I turn to the Magnitsky amendment and other issues. In March, the shadow Chancellor talked about the need to tackle the “global laundromat” operation, in which immense sums of money obtained from criminal activity are laundered here. The Security Minister made the point, which I totally accept, that the money may well have been cleaned before it arrives on these shores. None the less, we have to do all we can to implement the measures that have been identified. We are pleased that the Government accepted the Magnitsky amendment; it is important to have the powers to seize assets when we believe that there is a situation with a corrupt foreign official or other matters that require action.
The Security Minister also spoke, on the radio earlier this week, about unexplained wealth orders, which are an important part of our weaponry. He is indefatigable and will be here to wind up as well as having opened this debate. Will he clarify how many unexplained wealth orders have been used so far, whether they have been used specifically in respect of Russian nationals and the extent to which he intends to press their use in future?
Stephen Kinnock
The action being taken on money laundering is, of course, very important. However, the Magnitsky amendment relates specifically to violations of human rights. I urge my hon. Friend to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to accept, during his winding-up speech—on the record, from the Dispatch Box—that there is no reason whatever why the United Kingdom cannot take unilateral national action on the basis of the Magnitsky amendment.
Clearly, we would like action to be taken at an EU-wide level, but the fact that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have all taken unilateral action, implementing their Magnitsky legislation, clearly demonstrates that there is no reason why the United Kingdom cannot do the same. Could we have an explanation of why EU membership has been used as an excuse for total inaction—it is now four months since the Magnitsky amendment was passed? The Government could simply take the list of Russian citizens who have been sanctioned by those other countries under their Magnitsky legislation and use that as a starting point.
Sector Deal for Steel
Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Stephen Kinnock(7 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Kinnock
My right hon. Friend is right. That was an important milestone, but there have been so many false dawns, and warm words matched by frozen actions.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on the great work that he has done over a significant period to stand up for the steel industry. On the subject of broken promises, does he agree that investment in research and development is another big issue? Across the UK generally it remains stubbornly below the OECD average. The whole sector is now asking for increased R and D investment in steel, and the Government should deliver that.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I think that in the minds of some Ministers, and others in the House, steel is seen as metal bashing and an almost primitive industry, but in fact it is at the cutting edge of many innovations that we desperately need to drive our economy forward. If we are serious about getting a broad-based manufacturing renaissance, it must start with investment in the steel industry.
It was clear that Tata’s initial preference was to close the business down rather than sell it, but thankfully we managed to persuade the company to shift its position from closure to sale. Thanks to the magnificent professionalism and dedication of the workforce and steel unions, the turnaround plan began to kick in. The performance of the business dramatically improved, and from a fire sale we got the slow burn that eventually morphed into Tata’s decision to remain. However, that happened only after the workforce, facing the prospect of either the closure of the Port Talbot works or the closure of their pension scheme, voted for pension restructuring. They put the future of their industry, livelihoods and communities before all else. Steelworkers and steel communities are like no others. If my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) were well enough to be here today, she would have told us of the incredible strength and resilience of her community, which has stood firm, united and resilient, just as she has fought tooth and nail for it since the closure of the works.
There have been many ups and downs in the British steel industry in the past few years, but three things remain constant. The first is the relentless passion and commitment of steelworkers and their communities, exemplified by the delivery of the turnaround plan and the vote on the restructuring of their pension scheme. The second is the Government’s indifferent and incompetent attitude, and the third is the key policy asks of the industry—business and workforce—which have remained fundamentally unchanged for well over two years. We have discussed those policy asks many times, but it would be remiss not to take the Minister through them, as this is her first time attending such a debate.
To take trade defence first, we asked the Government to stop blocking reform of the lesser duty rule, which means tariffs that we can impose on illegally dumped steel are capped at 16%, while the Americans can impose far higher duties. The Trade Bill is set to transfer the lesser duty rule to UK legislation after Brexit. We asked for meaningful action against illegal Chinese dumping, with proper trade defence instruments. However, as steelworkers were being shown the back door, No. 10 was rolling out the red carpet for Beijing. What was the result? We can now add the challenge of illegally dumped Russian and Turkish steel to that of Chinese steel.
Secondly, on business rates, there have been five Budgets in the past two years, and not one has acknowledged the industry’s concerns about the way business rates inhibit investment and hold us back from investing in plant and machinery; so of course no remedy has been proposed.
Thirdly, on the question of procurement, which I have been working on extensively with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), the Government have utterly failed to translate their rhetoric into reality. The public interest test that they introduced proved inadequate. Our calls for a longer lead-in time for central Government contracts have fallen on deaf ears. The Government have resisted transparency, dumping the idea of mandatory reporting and refusing even to gather and hold the relevant data, let alone provide it to us whenever we have asked. Foreign steel has continued to be used on iconic projects such as the repair of Big Ben, the new Firth of Forth bridge, the new Type 26 frigates and all sorts of smaller refurbishment and development projects around the country.
On the most vital of issues, energy prices, there has been some tinkering at the edges but no attempt at all to tackle the root causes of our ludicrously uncompetitive energy costs. The Government found a chaotic resolution to the EU emissions trading threat—something that would have cost the steel companies tens of millions of pounds, owing to the mishandling of Brexit—but they have singularly failed to clear changes to the feed-in tariff and renewables obligation opt-out. On the central issue of energy pricing, which means that UK producers’ energy costs are more than 50% higher than those of our European competitors, nothing has been done, and it appears nothing will be done.
That brings me to the very matter that we are here to discuss: the sector deal for steel, which hinges on the issue of energy pricing. After publishing the industrial strategy White Paper, the Government asked all industries to present their sector deals—comprehensive packages about how their industry would work within a national industrial strategy. The steel industry did just that, by presenting a sector deal to Ministers that met all the requisite criteria back on 7 September.
That deal would see a 50% increase in investment, from £200 million to £300 million per year—an additional £1.5 billion of investment over the next five years. It would increase production capacity by 40%, from 10 million tonnes to 14 million tonnes a year. It would create 2,000 jobs, and would see 200 more apprentices trained every year. It would develop a low-carbon roadmap, and help to deliver a more efficient electrical system, almost doubling the industry’s demand-side response. It would see the industry pump an extra £30 million investment a year into R and D, which is an area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) pointed out, in which the UK is traditionally weaker than our rivals.
In return for all that value, all the steel industry asks is that the Government match the R and D funding, helping to establish the future steel challenge fund, which would bring together the steel value chain, from automotive to aerospace and from renewables to construction, to work in partnership towards a cohesive industrial strategy and a new kind of growth, unlocking exciting innovation and new opportunities. The deal asks for Government help in facilitating investment by providing access to commercially competitive loans, providing capital investment grants or innovative tax discounts linked to investment. Essentially, that would help the industry to unlock the monopoly on investment held by property speculators and quash the myth that investing in industry is risky.
Crucially, the linchpin on which all this untapped potential rests is energy prices. Our steel producers have to pay 55% more than their German competitors and 51% more than the French, which adds up to an additional cost of almost £50 million a year. As the sector deal makes clear, if the steel industry gets the help it needs, it will put every penny and more of that £50 million back into the industry, creating jobs, increasing capacity, innovating and creating new opportunities and value.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is wide support for the sector deal right across the steel sector? It makes sensible and innovative proposals. Why do the Government not simply adopt it?
Stephen Kinnock
I agree with my hon. Friend. The sector deal has been submitted under the umbrella of UK Steel and EEF, but with the full participation and support of Tata Steel, British Steel, Liberty Steel, Celsa Steel and a number of other key players in the sector. The steel industry really speaks with one voice on this.
Without a cost-competitive energy environment, steel companies cannot invest in the future, and the industry can survive only when it has the potential to thrive. Steel is too important a product for our economy, our security, our communities and our standing as a nation for us to have to rely on others for it.
Palestinian Communities: Israeli Demolitions
Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Stephen Kinnock(7 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of Israeli demolitions on Palestinian communities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Before beginning the debate in earnest, I will make clear a couple of things, which I hope will ensure that this and subsequent debates can proceed in a constructive manner.
First, nothing that I or, I hope, others will say is about religion or ethnicity. This is not an issue of Arab, Muslim or Jewish people. It is about upholding our basic values of justice and human rights, and it is about holding to account those states, Governments and duty bearers that violate those principles and laws. While the debate will, of course, discuss Israeli Government policies, with regard to the demolitions, this is not about being pro-Israel or pro-Palestine; it is about being pro-justice and pro-human rights. At a time when there seems to be a growing number of countries facing conflict, upheaval and political uncertainty, it is not a question of which is more important to talk about—they are all important.
Palestine has been in a perpetual—some would say declining—state of all of the above for more than 50 years. Indeed, the Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the most protracted in the world.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On the issue of decline, does he agree that, in the three years since that particular aspect of the conflict ended, conditions are actually getting worse in the Gaza strip? Many constituents have contacted me about that declining humanitarian situation. We need to redouble our efforts internationally to tackle it.
Stephen Kinnock
I agree, and I point to a recent UN report, which declared that Gaza will be “unliveable” by 2020 due to the degrading infrastructure there, which is degrading for reasons that we know well. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point.