UK Steel Industry

Debate between Alex Cunningham and Andrew Percy

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) who made a passionate speech. She will clearly be a doughty champion for her constituents, and I agree with a lot of what she had to say, although not with her comments about our membership of the European Union. In defence of the Minister for the northern powerhouse, we know how busy Ministers are, and I thought it was an unnecessary shot—[Interruption.] If Labour Members are going to make a cheap shot, they should at least be prepared for somebody to counter it in a quiet—[Interruption.] I thought we were meant to be being more respectful. Labour Members should take lessons from their leader about not shouting back and forth. Conservative Members are all very delighted about the Labour leader.

Apart from the things we disagree on, the hon. Lady made an excellent speech. I agreed with a lot of what she said—indeed, I will repeat some of it. That is no bad thing, because if something is worth saying once, it is worth saying many times, especially since the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise is present. I welcome her to the role. In previous discussions she has already given us confidence through her interest in this issue, and I know that she feels strongly about this sector of our economy and is keen to assist. I hope that that will follow through with actions, as it already has done in some respects.

This is an important issue for me and for my neighbour and friend, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), with whom I share the Scunthorpe steelworks. The constituency boundary goes through the middle of those steelworks, although he has all the exciting, sexy plant stuff and I have a lot of the land—[Interruption.] I am not saying that he is exciting and sexy. It is a massive issue for our area, and a big employer across my constituency and Scunthorpe, and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers).

Scunthorpe is a steel town, which we are proud of, and North Lincolnshire is a steel county. It is a massive part of the local economy, and 4,000 people are employed directly at the steelworks in Scunny, and another 4,000 to 8,000 in the supply chain across the area. This is a really big deal for us. It is the centre of our local economy and we must do everything to support it.

I apologise for speaking ahead of the hon. Member for Scunthorpe, because he will probably repeat some of the same facts, but it is important to put it on record that Scunthorpe produces 3.2 million tonnes of steel per year as semi-finished slabs, blooms and billets, as well as finished products such as plate, sections, rail and wire rod. We are grateful that the important Network Rail contract was confirmed a year or two ago. It has a fantastic workforce who are proud to work in the steel industry, particularly on the Scunthorpe site.

A lot of my constituents who work in the steel industry have contacted me in recent weeks and months because they are concerned and worried about what the future holds. As the hon. Member for Redcar said in her fine speech, the crisis in the United Kingdom steel industry is causing a lot of concern. In our area that was added to by some of the comments made by the Klesch group, which was considering purchasing part of the business. Unfortunately, when they pulled out they said a few choice words about industrial policy and the Government. I do not think that was helpful or necessarily all that informed, but it has helped to spread more concern in our area.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is great to hear a Conservative Member speak so passionately about the steel industry, and it was a large part of my life when I was a newspaper reporter. Does the hon. Gentleman support bringing forward the compensation scheme now rather than waiting until April next year?

[Andrew Percy]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes and I were two Conservative Members who voted against the imposition of the carbon floor price because of the impact that it would have not just on steel but on petrochemicals, which are massively important to North Lincolnshire and east Yorkshire. We would like the compensation scheme to be brought forward, as I planned to say later in my speech.

As the hon. Member for Redcar said, the nature of the steel industry is changing, and she gave a figure for how much steel we now import, compared with in the past. The figures that I was provided with state that 90% of steel consumed in the UK in the ’70s was from domestic production, but that share is now 20%. That unfortunate decline has taken place under successive Governments over the past few decades. The UK steel industry has had to become more export focused, which is part of the problem and a challenge for Scunthorpe. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes and I, together with our council leader who will shortly enter the other place, met a couple of weeks ago. We were told once again that although UK demand appeared to be picking up and doing well, the concern for Scunthorpe is the weakness in the European market, as well as other issues that I shall mention. That focus on export is a major weakness at present.

As the hon. Member for Redcar said, the sector continues to suffer from an economic crisis. The service sector-led economic recovery has left steel-consuming sectors such as construction as much as 10% below their 2007 levels. The recovery so far has been less steel-intensive than we might have hoped. In the UK, demand is 75% of pre-recession levels. Further challenges, which the hon. Lady outlined, come from Chinese dumping and currency issues. Those factors, as she accepted, are outside the control of this or any Government in Europe. The current strength of the pound is another issue to which the hon. Lady referred.

Tata has made three asks of the Government, which the hon. Lady mentioned. It is almost as if we co-ordinated our contributions. One of Tata’s requests, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) said in an intervention, relates to the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme. I do not need to go into detail, having said what I have said already, but if that compensation mechanism were brought forward, that would be most welcome. Energy prices, as we know, are 50% higher in the UK than for the UK steel industry’s main competitor in Germany. Companies in continental Europe are not facing the same cost pressures, nor are they awaiting a decision on state aid rules. So there are steps that can be taken by the Government to improve the situation, and I know that the Minister has heard these.

Youth Service Provision

Debate between Alex Cunningham and Andrew Percy

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Percy]

I am open to debate on that. I do not have a particularly strong view one way or the other. Provision for young people is something that local authorities should just want to make, because it is part of their core function. If we have local democracy those decisions should be for local councillors, and if they do not choose to provide those services local people have the option of throwing them out. Young people can play an important role in that if more of them vote. I always say to young people that the reason they do not have a free bus pas when pensioners do can be seen from the turnout figures.

I have been painting a rosy picture up to now.

[Alex Cunningham]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. It is his debate, after all.

[Alex Cunningham]

If the hon. Gentleman is not in favour of youth services becoming a statutory responsibility of local authorities, does he accept that perhaps we need to make sure there is specific funding—an increase first, and then specific ring-fenced funding for the delivery of youth services in local authority areas?

[Andrew Percy]

I am always wary, Mr Davies—and as a fellow Yorkshireman I should have mentioned that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship—of this place telling local authorities what they should or should not spend their budget on. I remember the Connexions budget, which was ring-fenced to local councils. It was ring-fenced funding for a couple of years, at which point it simply passed into the revenue budget of local authorities. The extra funding we got for Connexions, which we had to spend on it in the first year or two when it came from central Government, did not continue because it became part of our main revenue budget.

[Alex Cunningham]

I chaired a Connexions company across the whole of the Tees valley. That was not money vested in the local authority; it was vested in the Connexions company, which was there to deliver, and it had no other option but to spend the money on direct services.

[Andrew Percy]

I do not know what the situation was, but I remember in the city of Hull, when we had it, although there was pump-priming from central Government we eventually ended up picking up some of the expenditure on Connexions. [Interruption.] I will have to. If the hon. Gentleman wants to contact me afterwards we can try to sort it out. I was on the council for 10 years. There are many things I remember well and some I choose to forget. This is one that I remember; we debated it in the council chamber. I will happily be corrected afterwards.

On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point about whether we should be mandating how local councils spend their money, there are countless examples. Connexions may be an example of where that happened after funding was made available by the previous Government. Bus passes are another example of where local authorities got some money and were told that they had to provide something. The money from central Government disappears off and local authorities ended up having to absorb it in their revenue budget. My answer to his question is that I would be nervous. It is something that local authorities should choose to provide, and if they do not provide it, they can be held accountable at the next election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

I will not rehearse with the hon. Gentleman the reason why there are spending reductions for local government, which would have been implemented by whoever was in power. Let us not pretend that there is some sort of alternative nirvana in which local government budgets would be increasing. Regardless of who won the 2010 election, local government budgets would be reducing, so let us nail that myth.

I am rapidly trying to remember the hon. Gentleman’s question, which was on whether there is value in investment. I think there is value, but it can be provided in a number of ways. Indeed, who is providing such bespoke support, particularly to at-risk young people, varies between localities. There is no doubt, because the evidence is very clear, that if we intervene early on young people who are at risk of following certain pathways, we can prevent those outcomes—that is what we all want. I broadly agree with him, although how we provide it should not be mandated in one particular way.

That brings me neatly to North Lincolnshire council. We went through a painful process, because following the “Positive for Youth” Government guidance in July 2012, the local authority decided to consult young people on how it should provide its youth services. In so doing, the local authority spoke to 2,000 young people, who told us that the service they had been offered, which in many ways had not changed since the old Humberside youth service of 40 years earlier, was not necessarily delivering what they wanted it to deliver. That became controversial. Some youth workers did not like it, because different providers were brought in. Indeed, in the initial proposals there was a gap between what would happen to the core, traditional youth worker roles and the new provision. Questions were asked about whether we would lose something. Eventually, the local authority came to the sensible position of retaining a number of fully qualified youth workers in an outreach role across localities, and a range of other provisions was provided across various localities with an increased budget of £194,000, which is not insignificant for a small authority.

Young people told us that they did not necessarily want everything to be sport-related, which often happens with youth services and youth provision in the broader sense. People often think, “We’ll just put goalposts up and give kids a football, because that’s what they really want.” But that is not what a lot of young people want, so street dance is now being provided by a brilliant organisation called Street Beat. We have Grasp the Nettle, and we even have cooking classes. Of course, street sport is provided throughout the summer months, and indoor sports are provided in the winter months.

We have been able to base those activities in 20 centres across North Lincolnshire, including all the existing youth centres, which the council decided to retain and, in some cases, improve—the youth centre in Broughton in my constituency will shortly be moving. We now have new providers offering a range of services, including the Duke of Edinburgh award programme, in a number of new centres. There are new operators in places such as Winterton, Brigg, Epworth and Crowle. Attendance in Broughton has increased by 63% since youth services were provided in this different way, which was controversial in many respects, but the figures speak for themselves.

The local authority also talked to disabled young people about what they wanted. The responses were very interesting, because they wanted bespoke services for disabled young people to be part of the mix, but they wanted mainstream provision to apply to them, too. I pay tribute to Scunthorpe United, which does a great job of providing disabled youth services. I also pay tribute to Daisy Lincs, which is a great local charity headed by Julie Reed from Crowle. Daisy Lincs does a brilliant job with disabled young people.

I will now describe where we are at in my area and across North Lincolnshire. Before the changes, we used to have three sessions a week in Winterton; we now have five. We used to have eight sessions in Brigg; we now have nine. On the Isle of Axholme, which I represent, we used to have three sessions; we now have nine. The number of sessions increased by 49.5% between 2012-13 and 2013-14, and the attendances speak for themselves. There were 31,215 attendances in 2013-14 compared with 22,800 in 2012-13, so providing services in a different way and delivering them with extra funding has made a real difference. The biggest thing we found was that 85% to 90% of young people simply did not engage with the old youth service provision, which was working very well for a certain group of young people, but it was not working more broadly. It could be argued that some of the new provision, because it is based around themes such as street theatre, may not be picking up some of the important issues that the hon. Member for Bolton West so eloquently outlined. That is why outreach services are being retained.

We know that the picture is painful for many local authorities, but in North Lincolnshire, by putting in that extra money and providing services in a different way, based on what young people told us they want—there were some protests from youth workers—we have been able to deliver a positive change.

[Alex Cunningham]

The hon. Gentleman is giving the same message that Opposition Members would give. If more resources are put into the service, and if the service is modernised, better services can be delivered for more young people. Surely that is the message: we need more resources for youth work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

Local authorities may simply provide what they already spend, but we took the decision to reverse the cuts of the previous council administration. We put new money in, but we provided the services in a different way. If I had one criticism of my time as a local councillor and of my time working in this process, it is that some of those closest to the service do not necessarily always understand how society and young people have changed and how the provision needs to alter too. In my profession as a teacher, the pastoral support offered to young people now is very different from the support that was provided to young people even—when did I go to school?—10 or 20 years ago. The provision is very different, so schools pick up some of it, and there are other services, too. Nothing can exist in stasis. Money may be part of the answer, but we can do things differently. We can get positive outcomes even with a declining budget, which my other local authority faces because it made different decisions. The general message is that provision for young people is vital.

[Alex Cunningham]

It is not statutory.

[Andrew Percy]

I have already explained the answers to that one. I apologise once again for being late and will end there.

Council Tax Support

Debate between Alex Cunningham and Andrew Percy

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Percy]

We have listened to a lot of Opposition Members speaking, and that is all to the good, but nobody has spoken from the Government side. I would not have done so, as I turned up late, if it had not been for some of the nonsense that Opposition Members were coming out with.

[Alex Cunningham]

You do not care.

[Andrew Percy]

I think the hon. Gentleman’s comment sums up the debate. Opposition Members are not interested in having a sensible debate on the matter. All they are interested in is a dirty, filthy little political campaign that is all about trying to label anybody who disagrees with them as somehow not caring. It is ridiculous, and the public are seeing through it. [Interruption.]

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Alex Cunningham and Andrew Percy

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I quote:

“I would ban smoking in cars where children are present. I would do that for the protection of children. I believe in protecting children. I would see it as a child welfare issue.”

Those were precisely my feelings when I introduced the Smoking in Private Vehicles Bill under the ten-minute rule exactly 964 days ago. I did so after a briefing from the British Lung Foundation, with which I have been proud to work ever since. My thoughts have not changed in the two and a half years since, and I am delighted that the day has come when hon. Members have the opportunity for a decisive vote to make life healthier for half a million children. Although I share the sentiment and could hardly have put it better myself, the words I started with are not mine; they date from February this year and are those of the then public health Minister, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry).

In Committee in the other place, an amendment was tabled and supported by all political parties, with eight peers speaking in favour of the ban. Such is the cross-party nature of the measure. This will be the fourth time that Members of this House have asked for a definitive vote on the issue. After my ten-minute rule Bill failed to get a Second Reading, the noble Lord Ribeiro’s private Member’s Bill won support in the other place but failed to make progress in the Commons. In this Chamber, we tried to amend this Bill, but we failed again. Now, after sustained pressure from a cross-party group of Back Benchers and Lords, four measures are proposed in the Bill—including powers to bring in standardised packaging of cigarettes and to prevent smoking in cars with children present—and I welcome them all.

It is not just parliamentarians who support such a ban—quite the opposite. The changes are backed by many professional bodies and research groups. I have been delighted to work closely with other organisations, as well as the British Lung Foundation. The list is too long to name every person and organisation, but it includes Cancer Research UK, Action on Smoking and Health, the British Medical Association, the British Heart Foundation and Fresh, our own campaigning organisation that has done so much in north-east England. We must not forget the royal colleges and the 700 health professionals, who have already been mentioned.

Facts, figures and statistics in abundance have highlighted the appalling dangers of passive smoking, particularly to children and young people, and specifically in relation to smoking in vehicles. A plethora of studies have returned the same results: smoking in a vehicle significantly increases children’s exposure to harmful toxins and particulates. Numerous surveys and opinion polls have consistently shown that the public support such recommendations. I have no doubt that my fellow Members will draw attention to them as the debate progresses.

I want to focus on the arguments about enforcement and intrusion. It is important to remember that the police already have a number of duties with regard to private vehicles, and to recognise that the additional enforcement costs of a measure to outlaw smoking when children are present are minimal.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Cunningham]

I will not.

Other hon. Members have mentioned the non-wearing of seatbelts, which is a tricky misdemeanour to spot if ever there was one. It needs an eagle eye, but the police routinely monitor drivers and passengers alike to ensure compliance with the law. The introduction of legislation in 2006 to make the use of appropriate child restraints mandatory for children under the age of 12 were also considered very complex, and similar concerns were raised at the time. However, implementation went ahead and has been successfully enforced.

To argue that it would be too difficult and burdensome for officers to spot the act of smoking in a car, or to identify whether a child is being carried at the same time, is therefore no excuse. Indeed, I argue that such actions are markedly easier to recognise than gauging the height of a seated child to ascertain whether correct restraints are used. To suggest that officers would be unable to identify such instances is to underestimate their competence. I take much comfort from knowing that when educational campaigns on seatbelts accompanied the legislation, seatbelt use shot up from 25% to 91%, and from knowing that Department of Health figures indicate that there was 98% compliance from the moment the smoke-free legislation was introduced. I hope that the instances of such rules being flouted would be few and far between as a result of Britons’ law-abiding nature. I remain confident that, as with compliance on seatbelts, such regulations would become largely self-enforcing. Let us not forget that it is the role of the police to enforce the law.

Unlike most adults, children lack the freedom to decide when and how they travel, and do not know how harmful second-hand smoke is. Other hon. Members have already covered that point, so I will not repeat it.

There are international precedents for action: South Africa, Mauritius and Bahrain have all outlawed smoking in cars with a child present, as have seven of the eight states or territories of Australia, nine—I understand it is soon to become 10—of the 13 states in Canada and six of the 50 states in the United States. One published study from Canada has documented a positive impact on reducing second-hand smoke exposure in the relatively short term after implementation. Positively, it did not find any displacement effects of smoking being shifted to the home. It is time that we followed suit, heeded public and medical opinion, and got out of the slow lane.

I am only too aware that a positive decision for a ban still requires the Government to introduce the necessary regulations. I hope that the Minister will indicate when that is likely. The evidence strongly supports the Lords amendment, and I urge that Members on both sides of the House do likewise and stand up today for the protection of children.

Accident and Emergency

Debate between Alex Cunningham and Andrew Percy

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

There is doubtless concern on both sides of the House about A and E and the health service in general, but there is also more than an ounce of political opportunism, some of which we have heard today. Not once did we hear any reference made to the Nicholson savings, which have put local acute hospital trusts under huge pressure, with £160 million taken out of the budget for the Humber area alone.

If we talk to the chief executives of the hospitals, we find that they say that it is not top-down reconfigurations or policy changes since the general election that have placed them under such pressure, but the Nicholson savings. I know that there is cross-party support for those savings, but we should all be as honest as possible in this place and ensure that we all accept a degree of responsibility for that challenge and the funding that it has taken out of our acute trusts, resulting in pressure on A and E departments—not just this year, but last year and in future years.

As I say, there is a huge degree of political opportunism going on about the NHS. It is clear that the Labour party has decided that this is going to be an issue at the general election. In my own constituency, the very people who stood silent when our hospital was losing its beds, when we were losing our hospital wards, when all our mental health beds were being taken away from us—these were the people who represented the town for the Labour party—now suddenly find themselves standing up and pretending to be NHS campaigners. The public see through it—and I am sure they will at the next election, too.

Similarly, we have heard not a single apology from any Labour Member about the 50,000 beds cut under their Government. We have heard a lot about how people turning up at hospital often find that there are not enough beds, but not once did a Labour Member defend the 50,000 hospital beds lost when their party was in government. That tells us all we need to know about the reason for this debate and for the general comments we have heard about the NHS recently. It is all about political opportunism; it is about the next election. I am sorry that our hard-working staff in the NHS—I work with them every weekend when I volunteer as a community first responder—are being placed in the middle of a dirty political game.

In my remaining minute and a half, I would like to talk about a couple of examples from my constituency that are helping to address the problem.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman have the same problem in his area as we have in Stockton-on-Tees, where GPs tell me that people are being denied registration because their lists are unofficially being closed? If that is happening across the country, surely it is no wonder that there is unprecedented pressure on A and E departments.