Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson]

The disposal of nuclear submarines is a complex and challenging undertaking that I last discussed with the Minister for defence procurement, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), yesterday. As the hon. Gentleman will know from the meeting he had earlier this year, the Government have an established programme of work in place and are committed to the safe, secure and cost-effective defuelling and dismantling of all decommissioned nuclear submarines as soon as practically possible. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter further.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

15. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on trends in the level of manufacturing output.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Stephenson)]

We have regular discussions with Treasury Ministers on a range of subjects, including the importance of the manufacturing sector to the UK economy—it is the fourth largest in the EU and supports 2.7 million jobs. We are taking several measures to support manufacturing growth, including £141 million for the Made Smarter industrial digitalisation programme and £600 million for the high-value manufacturing catapult.

[Mr Bailey]

Notwithstanding the welcome news from Jaguar Land Rover, overall manufacturing production is contracting, export and domestic orders are down, investment is paralysed and employment is dropping. This has huge implications for the public finances. What discussions is the Minister having with the Treasury on the implications of all that for the delivery of the Tory leadership contenders’ tax and spending plans?

[Andrew Stephenson]

The latest Office for National Statistics index of production figures show that, despite strong fluctuations in recent months, the level of manufacturing output in May 2019 was the same as it was in May the previous year, and the level of the three months to May 2019 was actually higher than it was in the same period in 2018. That stands in stark contrast to the situation under the Labour Government, when we saw more than 35,000 manufacturing businesses cease to exist and 1.7 million manufacturing jobs lost.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Absolutely. I reiterate that this Government do not support the culture of poor payments and late payments. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the concerns of those in a particular sector who might face trouble getting paid for legitimate work. I would be very happy to meet him and that organisation.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. What assessment he has made of the effect of uncertainty of the UK’s trading relationship with the EU on the delivery of the industrial strategy.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are huge opportunities for advanced manufacturers, especially in his region, and the sector benefits from a minimum of frictions in trade, so it is very important that we conclude a deal with the European Union.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply and commend him for his approach. Boosting productivity is the declared objective of the industrial strategy, but it is plummeting at the moment due to Brexit uncertainty. Does he agree that it is absolutely essential that we get an early Brexit deal that delivers both a customs union and frictionless market access to the EU, because otherwise it is doomed to failure?

[Greg Clark]

I am a bit more optimistic than the hon. Gentleman in that respect, not least because of the announcement just yesterday from the Advanced Propulsion Centre, which he knows very well, about the opportunity of nearly £5 billion for manufacturers, including in the west midlands, to participate in the growing market for electric vehicle batteries. It is therefore crucial that we drive productivity forward. He will also know of the work that Jürgen Maier is leading, as part of the Made Smarter Review, to capitalise on the opportunities. However, as I have always been clear with the House, we can best advantage those manufacturers if they are able to continue to trade freely and without frictions with the European Union.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to welcome this cut in business rates. He will also be pleased to hear that, because of the updated forecasts from local authorities, the discount is now worth nearly £1 billion to retailers over two years, further bolstering this Government’s plan for the high street, which is now worth £1.6 billion, and directly benefiting some of our smallest retail businesses. My hon. Friend is a great campaigner for Crawley, and I am sure he will continue to ask questions on this subject.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

With just 10 days to go to a possible no-deal Brexit, only a third of the small businesses that trade exclusively with Europe have applied for and received their so-called EORI—economic operator registration and identification—numbers that will enable them to continue to do so. Those numbers could be allocated automatically by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Will the Minister lobby HMRC to tell it to do that, and back British business?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. It is true that we are making sure, as this Department is charged to do, that small businesses are absolutely aware of their obligations in regard to a no-deal Brexit. I would point out to him that HMRC is reissuing those numbers within 24 hours of small businesses applying.

Young Carers Support

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing the debate and on the eloquent way in which he outlined the issues.

I will not repeat the catalogue of personal experiences that my hon. Friend has witnessed at first hand. I think anybody who has had any experience of working with young carers in any part of the country would be able to repeat them. My own local authority, Sandwell Council, was one of the pioneers investigating this particular social problem, and published an early piece of work on child carers in 1989 with the specific objective of identifying the number of potential young carers in the borough and supporting charitable initiatives to address the problems they had. Certainly, first as a councillor and then as a Member of Parliament, it has been my privilege to work with the Sandwell Young Carers organisation, which has enabled me to see at first hand the inspirational young people we have in the borough and the work they do not only on behalf of their own families, but in relieving pressure on public services locally.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

As in my hon. Friend’s area, we have Gloucestershire Young Carers, which has just won a tender to remain as the organisation representing young carers in Gloucestershire. Does my hon. Friend agree that a tendering process is the most improper way to encourage those organisations to function properly in representing young carers? It just seems the wrong approach.

[Mr Bailey]

Absolutely. In fact, there was an earlier remark on the almost haphazard way in which young carer organisations can access funding. The fact is that to provide a proper, long-term service with the capacity to meet an area’s needs requires long-term, assured funding. The continual tendering process does not provide the degree of certainty necessary to plan services effectively for the long term.

In addition to the inspirational young people that I mentioned, there is the chief executive of SYC, Tracey Hawkins, whom I have known for many years. She brings absolute passion to the job—often in very trying financial circumstances—to sustain that service within my local authority. SYC has a record of raising awareness for professionals across the board within the borough to help them identify and support young carers, and it has a contract with the council to do so.

SYC provides lottery-funded academic support—through homework clubs—and educational support for young carers who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central outlined, often face very difficult home circumstances, resulting in their low attainment, and sometimes low aspiration. It also provides publicity and communicates with other community groups and clubs to broaden young carers’ activities, which again is lottery-funded. The problem is that SYC has to continually try to find new or repeat sources of funds to go on providing those services.

The initial survey in Sandwell identified 2,000 potential young carers as needing support, but SYC has the funding and capacity to deal with only about 520 at any one time. SYC also makes an enormous contribution to supporting other public services in the area.

[Julian Knight]

As a fellow West Midlands MP, I concur with many things the hon. Gentleman says, including on the hand-to-mouth existence that these organisations seem to lead. Does he also recognise that this is not so much about social deprivation or the area of the country where someone lives? I understand from Solihull Young Carers that the wealthier south of my constituency has as many cases of young people in this plight as the north of the borough, which is much more economically deprived. It is actually a nationwide problem.

[Mr Bailey]

I certainly agree that this problem is not confined to what were historically called deprived areas. By its very nature, the role of a young carer is often so hidden from general view that it is very difficult to make accurate assessments and comparisons. Although I cannot speak up for Solihull, I can say that it is very important that a uniformity of service should exist around the country, because this problem is not confined to specific geographical areas.

I am conscious of time, so I will quickly come to my concluding questions. To repeat the thrust of the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central, I ask the Minister what is being done to ensure that GPs and other health professionals identify, recognise and register young carers within their practice. The Department of Health and Social Care needs to take a more proactive role in raising awareness of this particular responsibility and ensuring that it is carried out. Similarly, what is being done to ensure that local authorities have pathways for young carers to access care and suitably trained, child-friendly staff with knowledge of the Acts covering young carers? What role do we envisage the voluntary-sector young carers projects playing in that pathway?

My hon. Friend also mentioned transport. Many young carers cite difficulties in accessing school transport and transport to young carers’ facilities, which are put on by charities and other community organisations to relieve some of the pressure of their everyday caring responsibilities. There is little point in having those facilities if the young carers who need them have not the wherewithal to get to them and enjoy them.

There is also an issue around the very welcome transitional arrangement policies for carers over 18 now being devised through a joint initiative of the Children’s Society and the Department of Health and Social Care. The 18-year-old barrier is often a sort of cliff-edge for young carers in their receiving care and advice, which needs to be overcome. I welcome the initiatives now being undertaken to address that problem.

However, my concern is that because many young carers organisations have historically not been involved in this particular area, it may provide a market opportunity for organisations that do not have the same community base, experience and sensitivity to actually fulfil that role. We do not want this to be regarded only as a business opportunity. We want to enable those organisations with a long history of providing this service for young carers in their local communities, and which know their local communities, to have the opportunity to build on that expertise and to develop it for the post-18 cohort of young carers.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Before I call the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden), I remind Members that I will begin calling the Front-Bench spokespeople at eight minutes past 5. That will give the Opposition spokespeople five minutes each, will protect the Minister’s 10 minutes and will also give two minutes at the end for the sponsor of the debate to respond.

Fireworks: Public Sales

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I express my pleasure at serving under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth? I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on securing the debate and on the comprehensive way in which she outlined the issues that have generated this petition and the public support for it.

I was sitting slightly uncomfortably when the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) described the idiots who let off fireworks in the street. I am actually a native of Cheltenham, and in my youth I let off fireworks in Cheltenham’s streets, which I am incredibly embarrassed about. However, that was my generation, in common with the situation outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North, although my generation is actually a little earlier than hers.

There are certain things that I put forward in mitigation. First, those fireworks were not as powerful, noisy or dangerous as now, although they were still quite capable of causing disruption and damaging people. Secondly, if my parents, or their neighbours, had found out, certain vigorous sanctions would have been applied to me. I am not sure whether there is still that powerful social pressure on curbing antisocial behaviour in the way that there was then. There is a range of reasons for that, but it is not really within the remit of the debate to go into them all.

However, things have undoubtedly changed. First, in the monocultural society that I grew up in, we had fireworks only on 5 November, or, if someone was a bit naughty, they would let some off before. Generally speaking, however, there would be only a week or so of firework activity. It is totally different now, because we live in a multicultural society, which I am very glad about. Many ethnic groups and religions have their own celebrations, some of which they like to enhance with the use of fireworks. I welcome that; we cannot confine this particular pleasure to one ethnic group in our society. Secondly, it has become more and more popular to use fireworks during other events—birthdays and other celebrations as well. The potential range of dates and the opportunity to buy fireworks, notwithstanding our legislation, are that much greater, with the potential disruption therefore equally greater.

I was around in the House during debates on fireworks legislation that took place in various steps between 2003 and 2005. I remember that the situation was getting absolutely intolerable at that time; fireworks seemed to go on for about six weeks, at all times of day and so on and so forth. That gave the impetus for that private Member’s Bill—and the last Labour Government’s backing of it—which brought in many of the restrictions that we now have. I have to say that, after those restrictions were brought in, there was undoubtedly a substantial diminution in the nuisance caused by fireworks.

However, things have been getting worse, which I put down to, essentially, cuts to our public services and to those agencies responsible for ensuring that our laws are properly exercised. On 19 October, I went out on patrol with officers from West Midlands police, who said that we were just entering into “nuisance fortnight”, which covers Hallowe’en and 5 November and for which all their leave was cancelled, demonstrating the impact that that period has on a key public service.

Of course, if the police are concentrating on dealing with the antisocial use of fireworks, they cannot concentrate on other aspects as well. For other services, such as the ambulance service, the NHS and the fire service, the same applies. The cuts to our public services mean that the control that might have been possible a few years ago cannot be exercised.

I do not think I have ever known a fixed penalty notice to be served on somebody who has used fireworks in an antisocial way. I do not know whether there are statistics that demonstrate that they are served on those people, but I certainly think it is fair to say that, whatever the regulations, in the culture and climate out there it is believed that no action will be taken against someone who uses fireworks antisocially.

There are many examples of people using fireworks antisocially in the Black country and Birmingham, but two are most conspicuous. Last year in Birmingham, one man died of burns when four people threw an industrial firework into his house, which set the house alight. This year in Smethwick, in an adjoining constituency to mine, a firework was thrown into a crowded pub. Happily there were no serious injuries, but the pub itself was severely damaged by the fire that ensued.

It is not really surprising that none of the perpetrators of those particular actions have been arrested or anything. With the cuts to West Midlands police—more than 2,000 officers have been cut over the last six or seven years—and the way the force is stretched, it has other things to concentrate on. None the less, that sort of crime is as devastating to those on the wrong end of it as any other sort of crime.

Many Members have talked about animals. On my life’s journey, I have been a dog owner. I love animals. I am concerned that—I assume because of cuts—the regulations on the number of decibels allowable for fireworks are not being enforced. Up until a year or two ago, it was quite normal for tests to be carried out on fireworks, and a heck of a lot were found to make noise of over 120 dB. That testing has stopped, and the only reasonable interpretation for why is that there is neither the funding nor the people to do it. That is really serious for animals. We talk about noise and animals, but we forget that animals, for the most part, have far more sensitive hearing than us, and if a noise disturbs us, the corresponding impact on animals will be devastating.

While there is a good case for looking at our laws, particularly on time of use—fireworks can be bought only at a particular time but can be let off three months later; storing fireworks presents another issue—the restrictions in respect of allowing them to be used only on private land are not being enforced at all. Fireworks are let off on public highways and so on.

We must invest more money in the enforcement of existing regulations. There is no point in introducing new regulations if they are not backed up. Above all, we need to take a long, hard look at restrictions on the usage of fireworks—where they may be used and at what time—allied with investment in the services that actually take action against those who breach the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. As some hon. Members have already outlined, when the last debate on this subject took place in January, we were just setting up the Office for Product Safety and Standards. We talked then about the collection of data, and my Department is working with National Trading Standards to consider ways to collect data to back up any proposed changes.

To recap, criminal events in which people use fireworks are investigated by police, if they are reported. In some cases, they attract fines and, in others, imprisonment.

[Mr Bailey]

I do not think that anyone would say that the police do not investigate. We are saying that the level of resources is such that they are not often able to carry out the sort of investigation that enables them to identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice. Can the Minister give me an indication of just how many investigations have taken place, how many fixed penalty notices have been given and how many perpetrators of serious firework-related crime have been prosecuted?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I would like to refer to the hon. Gentleman’s comment and also to his earlier remark about an incident in which a firework was thrown into a pub. He suggested that it was not investigated—

Budget Resolutions

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

As a west midlands Member of Parliament for a constituency that has a long manufacturing tradition but is still heavily dependent on the success of our motor industry in general and Jaguar Land Rover in particular, I want to add to the thrust of the questions put by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) and ask about the impact of taxation in the environmental programme in our motor industry.

I agree with the Minister. Our motor industry is a world leader and internationally recognised. It is at the cutting edge of research and development on current models and leading the way in developing new generations of electric and autonomous vehicles. It employs more than 1 million people, either directly or in the supply chain and related industries, and its exports amount to 12% of our total goods exports.

Notwithstanding this contribution, our motor industry is facing problems that unfortunately were not tackled in the Budget. Investment has dropped by a third in the past year, while new car sales have dropped by 20%—a reduction driven by a catastrophic drop of 40% in sales of diesel cars. This has particularly affected Jaguar Land Rover in the west midlands. Given this scenario, I would reasonably have expected a Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider measures to help an industry that is so important but in such a desperate situation.

Part of the problem is due to the chilling effect of Brexit, and I recognise that there is a limit to what the Chancellor can do about that, but the fact remains that consumer choice of new cars is heavily influenced by company car taxes and vehicle excise duty, and the current regime is both damaging to the industry and bad for the environment. The current messaging around diesel fails to recognise that new diesel engines have no more NOx emissions than petrol-driven cars and produce 20% less carbon dioxide. Perversely, the current move to petrol-driven cars is actually increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

This policy is being driven by our commitment to—I am sorry for the jargon—the new worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedure. It is right that we have committed to this new testing procedure, which tries to demonstrate the real road experience of vehicle emissions, rather than just the laboratory testing, but it will have an unintended consequence, in that there will be an increase in the level of emissions demonstrated as a result of this taxation, and potentially millions of consumers will be driven into higher vehicle excise duty bands as a result. It will mean that the Government’s much-heralded cuts in income tax will be more than outweighed by their increase in vehicle excise duty.

The perverse outcome of the Government’s policy is, as the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) pointed out in her question to the Prime Minister last week, that people are holding on to their current, more heavily polluting diesel cars, rather than buying cleaner, new models. The Government’s policy is damaging to our motor industry, to our environment and to the consumer, and the Government have missed this opportunity do something about it. I urge the Minister, who I think understands the issue, and is committed to keeping our motor industry in the forefront of international development, to impress on the Treasury that if we have a new Budget next year—and even if we do not—action must be taken urgently to remedy this situation and save our motor industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

I would be delighted to make that visit.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The chief executive of Jaguar Land Rover has said that a bad or no deal Brexit would cost the company more than £1 billion a year and threaten its future investment in the UK. Can the Minister explain how that can be avoided if the UK is outside the customs union?

[Greg Clark]

It can be avoided by having a good deal based on the White Paper that was published earlier in the summer and that the motor industry has strongly endorsed.

2015 Steel Summit Commitments

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend makes a vital point, not just in terms of opportunities in that area for the creation of jobs and the boosting of the local economy, but in terms of the huge implications for the steel industry that we know such major infrastructure projects have in keeping that pipeline going.

The publication of an annual steel pipeline to provide early sight of such opportunities for UK producers has revealed over 4 million tonnes of steel requirements in the coming years. The publication of the procurement policy note on procuring steel in major projects has also helped to encourage a more holistic and proactive approach to steel procurement. Despite these steps forward, the benefits of this relatively low-cost way of subsidising UK steel and jobs are not being maximised. The guidance is interpreted differently by different Departments and organisations, and information sharing is still far too limited. Clearer and more detailed data on the amount of UK steel in public projects would be a welcome improvement, to track progress and to ensure it is held up to the light of public scrutiny. Introducing a baseline for levels of steel in UK projects would also help to maximise the benefits to domestic steel production.

Fourthly, trade remedies have been an incredibly important defence mechanism in the battle against state-subsidised steel, which is flooding the market and forcing down prices.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the light of the American steel tariffs, there is a real danger that steel that has hitherto been going to the US will be diverted and dumped on to the British market, and that the current UK policy is going in the wrong direction, unlike that of the European Union, which is going in the correct direction?

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I know colleagues have raised that issue a number of times with the Secretary of State for International Trade. The implications of the steel tariffs that President Trump has announced are not just a direct existential challenge to our steel industry here; the knock-on effect of further dumping from the Chinese market and others into our market is a real crisis coming down the line.

Such unfair trading practices put UK steel at a disadvantage for trading fairly without a single bit of state support. Thanks to work within the EU, dumping methodology has been reformed and a modernised regime has had a big impact in reducing the levels of dumped steel in the EU market. It is a real worry that, when we leave the EU, the UK will not endorse the same kinds of protection and the UK steel market could be in danger of being swamped. The UK Government’s unexplainable opposition to the modernisation package within Europe suggests that they will not introduce the same approach in the UK system post-Brexit. The proposals so far suggest there could be a much more difficult and drawn-out process for initiating defence measures, by which time the damage would have been done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Gentleman will know that through the industrial strategy we are doing all we can to support British business and make sure it gets the investment it needs, particularly through the British Business Bank, which is looking to release £20 billion of patient capital to give our businesses the rocket fuel they need to grow.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The decision by JLR to invest in electric vehicles is very welcome, but equally the decision to produce the Discovery model in Slovakia is profoundly worrying. Does the Secretary of State agree that it underlines the need for tariff-free access for both cars and components in the EU?

[Greg Clark]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said at the end—of course we need tariff-free access with a minimum of frictions to these important markets—but I disagree that this is not a sign of significant confidence. JLR is investing in the next generation of vehicles. I hope he will welcome that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. All the recent decisions on new contracts by manufacturers in Europe have gone to British firms. This is most recently typified by the announcement by Toyota, near Derby, of its investment in a new model, and I am confident that this will continue. The automobile industry is doing very well. It is investing hundreds of millions of pounds in new products to be produced in UK factories.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last year, the Treasury announced a £400 million public-private sector fund to develop charging infrastructure for plug-in cars. This is vital for the development and growth of that market. To date, however, no one has even been appointed to manage that fund. Will the Minister tell me when the fund will be operational?

[Richard Harrington]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the money is already spent. It is our intention to launch a request for proposals to secure a fund manager this summer. Further details will be included in the Department for Transport’s forthcoming zero-emissions road transport strategy.