Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Lady will know that we have already made progress. Up to 300,000 workers who are entitled to payslips will now receive them, all workers are given a statement of their terms and conditions from day one, and 1.2 million agency workers are given a breakdown showing who pays them. We know that we must do more, but we want to respond carefully to the hundreds of responses to the Taylor review consultation that we have received, so that we can make the necessary changes and ensure that those practices are stamped out.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

19. What assessment his Department has made of the effect of the Government’s proposed facilitated customs arrangement on UK businesses.

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

The proposed arrangement is a significant advance on the Mansion House speech. Instead of just minimising frictions at the border, it provides for zero frictions. That has been welcomed by businesses generally, including, at the Farnborough air show yesterday, Boeing, which is of course an important investor in the hon. Lady’s city.

[Angela Smith]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but I am somewhat surprised. The Government’s White Paper tells us that the facilitated customs arrangement is designed to

“preserve frictionless trade for the majority of UK goods trade, and reduce frictions for UK exporters and importers.”

Will the Minister please tell us which goods will be excluded by the arrangement, and what level of friction business can continue to expect?

[Greg Clark]

We are very clear about the fact that, as has been recognised by businesses up and down the country, the proposal provides for zero frictions at the border. That is very important for advanced manufacturing, which is itself very important in the city that the hon. Lady represents.

2015 Steel Summit Commitments

Angela Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is right. It was the second-largest blast furnace in Europe and the coke ovens were fantastic; they were capable of producing much more, including foundry coke, for which there was a huge market. It had a huge role still to play in the British steel sector, and we did not have a strategic nationwide approach to looking at those assets and preserving the value they had for our economy and for the future. I know many hon. Friends here want to contribute and share their thoughts and experiences, so I will not take too much time, but I will just give an overview of where we were and where we are now.

First, I will start with electricity costs. We asked for help with bringing the cost of electricity in line with that of our EU counterparts. In 2015, the Government introduced compensation for energy-intensive industries a few months earlier than planned, but a large disparity between electricity prices in the UK and the EU still remains. It translates into a total additional cost to UK steel producers of around £43 million per year, or around 17% of the sector’s net earnings, which is a significant margin to be losing in excessive energy costs. Europe offers many examples of acceptable state aid solutions to the energy challenge, but the Government have not given any serious consideration to what we can do.

Secondly, I come to business rates, which irk sectors across the UK, not just steel. The sector has put forward a number of proposals, such as removing plant and machinery from business rates calculations or offsetting previous trading losses against future business rates, but change in this area has been met by resistance, even though the sector has committed to reinvesting any savings, which would have a huge impact on local steel-producing regions. That feels like a short-sighted approach from the Government, ignoring a powerful tool for incentivising capital investment, increasing the productivity of the sector and helping to deliver a northern powerhouse boost.

Thirdly, public procurement is another area where the UK has so much potential to support UK steel makers, especially through large infrastructure projects such as HS2 and the Heathrow expansion. I know that British Steel in my constituency has aspirations to win contracts on those projects, and many other colleagues will have similar ambitions for their areas. There has been a close working relationship between the sector and Government on procurement.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have missed a real opportunity for UK plc generally, and for steel in particular, with their decision to refuse the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

No, no—far from it. The hon. Gentleman invites me to move on to the next part of my response, which is about exactly this issue. One of the first parts of the sector deal is getting the sector to work together to say, “What is it that we collectively need going forward?” We had the “Future Capacities and Capabilities of the UK Steel Industry” report produced at the request of the industry; the Government paid for it with taxpayers’ money. It highlighted onshore opportunities that will be worth up to £4 billion a year by 2030. This is about customer demand and substituting for imports specialty steels, higher-quality steels or steels that can support the investments in the offshore wind industry—things that are now being imported. That opportunity exists for the UK plants and it is forming part of the sector deal.

As I have urged hon. Members to recognise before, we should not use the steel sector deal as a measure of how much the Government love the sector. The idea is not to have Government write it and say, “This is what you need to do.” It is for the industry to come together and set out what it needs and wants from Government. We have seen the publication of sector deals that directly benefit the industry that we are talking about. The automotive sector deal was an early one out of the traps. The automotive industry has already increased its use of UK-made content. That went up from 36% previously to 44% two years ago, and the aim is to reach 50% or more by 2022, as a direct result of the sector deal. The construction sector is a vital market for many of the steel products in this country, and we published the construction sector deal last Thursday. It aims to build homes and offices quicker than in the past and it also has commitments in relation to domestic content.

We are absolutely committed to securing a steel sector deal that works for Government, industry and employees. It would be unfair to blame any delay on my hard-working officials. This is about getting the right deal—one that is not just a simple request for money but is saying, “What are we collectively going to do to increase productivity and competiveness, so we can invest again in these steel plants and create jobs in these important areas?”

[Angela Smith]

I do not agree with the Minister’s comments about the tidal bay lagoon, but there are other aspects of UK manufacturing where a sector deal could play a real part. The development of the shale gas industry is one of those. Can the right hon. Lady update us on progress made in maximising UK steel content in the shale gas industry?

[Claire Perry]

That is an excellent point. The hon. Lady will know that I am keen for us to have an energy policy that delivers secure, affordable, low-carbon and innovative energy. I believe that onshore shale gas can play a part in that, and we are soberly going through the process of testing the wells. She raises an important point about ensuring that that work is done using UK steel content. I will take that away for my conversations with the companies, but I did hold a very effective shale industry roundtable, at which I was struck by the number of small companies that are making the pipes and specialty products that rely on UK steel and the opportunities for them, so the hon. Lady makes an excellent point.

I again reassure colleagues here today that work is going on on the sector deal, but we have to encourage the companies that we are working with and that provide so many jobs in the constituencies represented here to think about what they will do. There are positive signs. We are seeing steel companies investing in very good research and development. Companies are bidding for money from our industrial strategy challenge fund—the current wave—for more innovative products, and that is incredibly important going forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and one that we will follow up with detailed statistics.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

12. What assessment his Department has made of the value of the industrial opportunity presented by the Swansea bay tidal lagoon.

[The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)]

Helping businesses create high-quality, well-paid jobs across the country is integral to this Government’s industrial strategy. On the Swansea tidal lagoon, taking into account that job creation capability, as well as the decarbonisation potential and the cost to UK taxpayers, is an integral part of that analysis.

[Angela Smith]

It is understood that major infrastructure projects give rise to opportunities for companies throughout the UK supply chain. The proposed Swansea lagoon project certainly falls into that category, and it could provide companies throughout my constituency and South Yorkshire with opportunities to supply products and processes to the project. Will the Minister therefore assure me that a holistic approach that places a value on jobs and investment throughout the country is being used to assess the viability of this project?

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Lady, as always, speaks up powerfully for her constituency. I assure her that exactly those assessments are being made, both by ourselves and by the Welsh Government, to whom there have been very specific requests from the developer. It is right that we are having a cordial, open-book conversation about what commitments are actually being asked for, because this all comes back to UK consumers and/or UK taxpayers.

Fireworks

Angela Smith Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I am slightly thrown because I thought you were going to call a Government Member, but I thank you very much.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

There are more Opposition Members than Government Members down to speak, so I am just trying to balance it out before the end.

[Angela Smith]

I appreciate that. I am not used to such favours. It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate, which was very ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones).

This issue has been repeatedly debated in Parliament and has been the basis of more than one petition. Some 158 signatures to this petition were secured in my constituency, which is higher than average. That does not surprise me, because I receive regular correspondence on the topic from constituents, and with very good reason. On 6 November last year, just after bonfire night, the local newspaper, The Star, reported:

“Fireworks thrown at police officers and fire engine attacked as more than 500 incidents”

of irresponsible use of fireworks were reported across South Yorkshire in the space of a few hours.

I have to say that, although the irresponsible use of fireworks and how they are sold are matters of great concern to many people, like many others—I think everybody who has spoken so far—I make it clear that I am not opposed to public firework displays. Indeed, I have enjoyed the new year’s eve display across the river near the London Eye, I have enjoyed firework displays in Madeira and I have enjoyed much smaller displays in my constituency, such as at the Waggon & Horses in Langsett, which does a wonderful “Mr Fox” night every year on the night of the hunter’s moon. Let me be clear: I enjoy a good firework display.

However, while displays such as those I described are magnificent spectacles, there are many times when the—particularly private—use of fireworks is not only a nuisance but downright dangerous. The latest figures, which have already been cited but are worth repeating, show that, between bonfire night and new year’s eve in 2017, there were 221 reported incidents of firework misuse. Those range from reports to the RSPCA in Wales about distressed and unwell stray dogs on new year’s eve to a report of a large group of teenagers, with some wearing masks, running in front of cars and setting off fireworks. The cars had to swerve away from them or execute emergency stops.

Of more concern, according to the Firework Abatement campaign, is admissions to hospital owing to firework accidents, which have risen year on year over the last few years. That is also of particular concern to me, because I do not think any right to enjoy the private use of fireworks is worth the serious risk of injury and harm to people and animals. We have all seen pictures of children who have been permanently disfigured by the misuse of fireworks, and I think there is a responsibility on the House to consider the balance between regulation and the rights of individuals because of the increasing risk of injury.

In addition, many animal welfare charities have for a number of years been concerned about the effect of the use of fireworks on animals. The British Horse Society has reported year-on-year rises in horses either injured or killed because of fireworks, as was mentioned earlier. The RSPCA has long-standing concerns about the effects of fireworks on dogs, with almost half of all dogs showing signs of distress. Many cats also show distress when fireworks have been used nearby. The Dogs Trust did a very interesting survey of 3,750 pet owners on this matter. The results showed that two thirds of dogs are worried by fireworks, and that 93% of owners alter their routine during firework celebrations to try to minimise the trauma on their pets.

That is all evidence that something needs to be done and that we really need to start taking this seriously. All the organisations I have referenced would like to see changes made to the law to secure further restrictions on the use of fireworks, and I think they have a strong case. As the law stands, regulations derived from the Fireworks Act 2003 dictate that fireworks must not be let off between 11 pm and 7 am, except at Chinese new year, Diwali and new year’s eve, when the period is extended until 1 am, and bonfire night, when it is extended to midnight. That means that fireworks can be legally used by private citizens 365 days a year—every day—between 7 am and 11 pm. That is an incredibly liberal regime.

The Government response to that, and to the petition in particular, is to argue, as they have done for some time, that the best way to deal with the problem is through education. I have to disagree. That policy is weak in the face of the evidence, which, although it is not as robust as one would perhaps like, indicates increasing antisocial use of fireworks, and that more damage to people, animals and property is taking place than ever before.

I am not here to call for a complete ban on the private use of fireworks, much as I would like to. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said he was a fully paid-up member of the grumpy old persons’ club, and I would also like to subscribe as a fully paid-up member. However, as much I would personally like a complete ban on anything other than public displays—I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) on this—I recognise that that would probably be a step too far at this stage. What we need are further restrictions, to allow fireworks only on agreed traditional dates, such as 5 November, new year’s eve, Chinese new year and Diwali.

We also need further restrictions on the noise levels allowed. The current regime allows fireworks to make noise up to a 120-dB limit, which is the equivalent of a jet aircraft taking off. That is far too loud and a cause of great concern, particularly to the many animal welfare charities that have contacted us on this. I also take the point made by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), about the need to be more careful about where public displays take place. The Government ought to have more regard to that.

The law as it stands does not protect vulnerable people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South pointed out. The available evidence suggests that private firework use also has an extremely detrimental effect on both domestic and wild animals. It is disappointing that the Government appear unwilling to open up this area of legislation for review, given the year-on-year increase in antisocial use that I described earlier.

As I said earlier, no right to let off fireworks in the back garden, to buy those fireworks or to organise family gatherings in private places, is worth the significant risk of injury to children, animals and adults that we see year on year. Something needs to be done. A change in the law would certainly have public support, with online petitions gaining more than 100,000 signatures each year for the last three years. I therefore ask the Minister—I agree with earlier comments that he is a very reasonable and competent person—to take on board these concerns, to re-evaluate firework use and to consider introducing new restrictions and guidelines on the use of fireworks by private citizens.

Post Office Services: Burncross

Angela Smith Excerpts

Monday 30th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The full words of the hon. Lady should be heard. In the inexplicable circumstance of colleagues not wishing to hear her observations, we shall wait until all who are present clearly do, and until they are attending to the Adjournment debate speech, rather than—I say this to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—engaging in their own private conversation.

[Angela Smith]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is very kind. I know that we have plenty of time for this debate, but I will not detain the House for longer than is necessary.

Tonight I raise an issue that is unlikely to attract a great deal of parliamentary attention. However, for many people in Burncross in my constituency, the loss of their post office is a major issue that threatens serious disruption to their everyday lives. Indeed, it is such an issue that within days of the announcement that their well-used post office was to close, I received a petition from more than 1,400 local residents asking me to help.

Burncross is situated between the small town of Chapeltown and the old pit village of High Green. It is a residential area characterised predominantly by semi-detached homes of mainly private tenure, along with a smattering of local authority homes and some sheltered housing. The area is mixed demographically, but one of its principal characteristics is a higher than average proportion of residents who are eligible for an old age state pension. In other words, those who are most likely to need accessible postal services, and least likely easily to traverse large distances over Sheffield’s renowned hills to access them, are most likely to be hit by the closure. That is especially true in view of the comparatively poor public transport connectivity in the area.

The area, nestling as it does between High Green and Chapeltown, suffers from a lack of retail establishments of its own. For years, however, Burncross has enjoyed the presence of a Costcutter, which has also housed the post office. The supermarket has become an important part of the fabric of the area. It has been there for all the years that I have been the Member of Parliament for Burncross, and it was there for many years before that.

The post office has been well used, with some 1,200 transactions a week. It operated at a profit, and in 2014 it was upgraded in the network transformation programme into a new “main style” branch. I believe that that reflects its importance to the post office network. In July this year, however, it was announced without warning that the post office would close imminently, and not because the Post Office considered it to be a failing outlet, as is often the case. This debate does not represent a criticism of the Post Office, or, one may be surprised to find, the Government.

The reason for the closure was that the freehold owner of the building that housed both the supermarket and the post office decided to redevelop the site and construct a new, larger premises. That, one would imagine, could only be a good thing. Costcutter, however, decided at that point not to renew its lease arrangements and has opted out of running its business from the new premises. The upshot is that the Co-op has entered into an agreement with the owners of the building to run one of its supermarkets from the location, but its plans for the store do not include a post office.

Like any good constituency MP, I have spoken to both the Co-op and Post Office Counters about the loss of the service. While Post Office Counters is sympathetic and supports the ongoing provision of postal services in the area—it totally understands the distance that local people will have to travel if they can no longer enjoy the service—its view is that there is nowhere large enough or suitable in the area, apart from the premises soon to be taken over by the Co-op. I am afraid that my conversations with the Co-op—I say this as a member of the Co-op movement—have been very disappointing.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her campaign to try to retain the post office. I have been involved in many such cases across the water in my own constituency, and we have tried very hard to find alternative premises for post offices. On occasion, the Post Office can give grants to the potential shop owner to increase the size of a property and make it more acceptable. Has she been able to follow that up as a possible solution to her campaign?

[Angela Smith]

I do not think that that is an option, given that the new premises are already larger than the old one in which the post office was housed. That is not really the issue, as I shall establish in a moment.

As I have said, my conversations with the Co-op have been very disappointing. The company allows many postal concessions in its stores throughout the country, and it has such an arrangement in a store in the town of Stocksbridge in my constituency, but it has flatly ruled out giving a concession to run a post office in the new store, which opens next month.

At this point, we need to remember that the post office in the old store was profitable and would no doubt continue to be so, with 1,200 transactions a week. I suspect the reason for the Co-op’s decision is related to a calculation that profit margins for grocery items outweigh those that can be gained from postal services. While I appreciate that the Co-op is a business that has to make a profit in order to be sustainable, it is important to bear in mind the unique selling point of the brand in communities up and down the country. This USP is, of course, its collective roots and its unique position in our social history as a retail business firmly established in the ethics of serving the interests of its customers, who are of course its shareholders, too.

Indeed, given the depth of feeling made so palpable by many of my constituents about the threat to their postal service, I think the Co-op may well succeed in scoring an own goal. Many Burncross residents are saying that they will never forgive the Co-op for, as they see it, taking away their post office. I warn the Co-op now that when Sheffielders decide they are going to dig their heels in, they really dig their heels in. My constituents feel neglected by movements beyond their control: an owner of a property who sees an opportunity to increase profits by redeveloping the premises; a leaseholder in the form of Costcutter not wanting to pay the extra rent that will no doubt be due because of the redevelopment, which is fair enough; and a new leaseholder who intends to use the extra space for what it sees as more profitable purposes, no doubt in part to service the extra rental charges due on the redeveloped store.

The real tragedy of all this, however, is that the customers of Costcutter and the old post office were satisfied with the store that was there. It provided all the services the local community wanted. Now they have lost perhaps some of their most cherished services—the collection of their hard-earned pensions being one of them—in the pursuit of higher profit margins.

To bring my remarks to a close, I appreciate entirely that the Minister will probably say that these are commercial decisions and there is therefore very little she can do, but I am not sure we should just settle for that. My constituents stand to lose permanently what they know to be a vital service—not for the normal reasons of the service not being sustainable, but because a business does not want to allocate space for it since it sees a better opportunity for the use of that space. In such circumstances, surely there should be a role for Government, national or local, to intervene. Ideally, the Government need to be able to act as brokers, incentivising partnerships between organisations to secure the amenities that communities such as Burncross so desperately need. In this instance, of course, it would be something as simple as a post office counter in a grocery store—the very provision that we have often decided is the most sustainable way to make sure that postal services continue to be delivered in a given area.

Can I ask the Minister, therefore, if she will review how concessions, such as those found in supermarkets, are awarded? Can she examine what help Government can give to make sure postal services are provided in circumstances such as those in Burncross? Given that postal services often and increasingly have to compete for space alongside other uses, how can public authorities, working with the Post Office, make sure the public good element of postal services is taken into account when commercial retail decisions are made? My constituents are losing their postal services and cannot possibly be expected to access alternative post office outlets easily, given the distance involved and the particularly hilly nature of the area—and that is particularly the case for the elderly population. Surely Parliament and the Government should be about giving a voice and a say in society to such people, giving the voiceless a voice. I hope the Minister takes note of that in her responses.

Although the circumstances of Burncross losing its post office are local and not that important to the rest of the world, similar stories are being played out across the country, with profit being put before the public good. It is only when those are added together that they start to look like something more important, and then often it is too late for us politicians to do something. Today it might be a community post office in Burncross that loses out; tomorrow it will be another one in another constituency, until eventually the network starts to look like a pale shadow of its former self. Then it will be too late. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on securing this debate on post office services in Burncross and for the hard work that she has done in trying to secure their continuation. She has clearly set out the importance of post office services to her community and I fully appreciate the concerns that she has raised.

The Government recognise the important social role that post offices play in communities across the country, and that is why we will have provided nearly £2 billion to maintain, modernise and protect a network of at least 11,500 branches across the country, far from all of which are profitable. Today, the 11,600 post office branches in the UK form the most stable network that the Post Office has enjoyed for some time. That is because the Post Office is transforming and modernising its network, thanks to that investment from the taxpayer, which has enabled the modernisation and transformation of more than 7,000 branches.

The network is at its most stable for a generation, and customer satisfaction has remained high. I understand that apart from the critical problem in this particular area, the hon. Lady’s constituency has benefited from four out of its 15 branches now opening on a Sunday and almost 1,000 additional opening hours a month—[Interruption.] I understand that that is no comfort to the particular constituents she has mentioned, and I will come on to address the points that she made about that locality.

Post offices are crucial to the many millions of customers, including hundreds of thousands of small businesses, who use the service daily to access the Post Office’s diverse range of services, including banking services. I completely understand the difficulty and the frustration that communities face if there is a loss of post office services. We of course hope that the loss we are debating tonight is temporary.

The hon. Lady spoke passionately about her concerns for post office services in the Burncross community. I fully understand the points she made about the local area having many older people who would find it difficult to travel to Chapeltown or High Green, particularly given the limited public transport in the local area. I know that the Post Office apologises to its customers and the community for the huge inconvenience caused by what I hope is a temporary closure. Both I and the Post Office recognise the need to restore post office services to her community as soon as possible.

Hon. Members will be aware that the vast majority of post offices in the network are now independent small businesses operating as agents of the Post Office, so while the overall network position is very good, individual small businesses can face problems like any other. These sometimes lead to temporary closures. As the hon. Lady acknowledged, temporary closures are often beyond the direct control of the Post Office. The Post Office has not chosen to close this branch, but local development and the demolition of existing premises has resulted in the current position. The Post Office is working hard to find a solution that will allow it to restore services to the community. I will certainly work with the Post Office and the hon. Lady to redouble efforts to find an alternative site for the post office service her residents deserve. I am aware that the Post Office met the hon. Lady to discuss the matter and that it has also met local councillors.

It is very unfortunate that the Co-op has indicated it no longer wants to take on the post office. I share the hon. Lady’s deep disappointment in the decision made by the Co-op, especially, as she said, considering its founding principles. Unfortunately, the Post Office cannot force a business to take on a post office if, for whatever commercial reasons, it does not wish to do so. However, the Post Office has and will continue to look for willing partners who are keen to take a post office on as a part of their business in her community.

The hon. Lady spoke about the unique public good of the Post Office in communities up and down the country. This is absolutely one of the key points the Post Office makes when it advertises its branches and when it speaks to potential new operators. The strength of its history and social purpose cannot be underestimated, and it can have a very positive impact on a business. It is also taking steps to develop its business offer, with particular reference to banking services, which it is improving all the time. Considering the large numbers of high street bank branches that are closing around the country, this has the potential to sharpen up the offer the Post Office makes not just to its customers and small businesses that patronise its branches, but to the business partners that take on a post office branch or counter. This is also something we must push.

The Association of Convenience Stores recently published the “Local Shop Report 2017”, which ranked post offices first in terms of having a positive impact on their local areas. These are all selling points that we have to make to potential new partners. There are, of course, commercial benefits too. It offers day-to-day banking for 99% of personal account customers, as well as businesses. It is also the UK’s number one for foreign exchange and the leading provider in the mails market. Some 73% of customers say that the post office is their main reason for visiting a partner store and 78% of people using the post office bought something else in the retail outlet that played host to the post office counter.

To keep post offices in our communities or—as in the hon. Lady’s case—to reopen a service, we must ensure that running a post office continues to be an attractive and commercially sustainable proposition. The Government believe that this is the case. More than 90% of branches are now run by independent business operators and retail partners. The success of the network’s transformation programme, which has seen 2,000 new operators taking on and running post office branches, demonstrates that operating a post office continues to be an attractive offer to many independent and retail businesses. I can only assume that she and the Post Office have been unable to get that message across to the Co-op in her constituency.

[Angela Smith]

The Minister has got to the crucial point: the Co-op has refused to listen to the argument that post office services benefit stores such as the one it will soon be operating in Burncross. Its point-blank refusal to accept that it is good for the community and potentially for the itself is incredibly frustrating.

[Margot James]

I quite agree with the hon. Lady. Working with a retail partner brings the benefits of shared overheads across the combined post office and retail business, including property and staff costs, while the host retailer also benefits from increased footfall, to which I alluded earlier, and the income from post office products. There is also the evidence in terms of the number of transactions that customers perform in post offices. I think she said that there were 1,200 transactions in her post office per week before it closed. For all these reasons, it makes not just social but huge commercial sense.

I can only assume that the arguments with the Co-op in her constituency have been exhausted and that there is no chance of changing its mind, but if in her view that changes, she must please contact my office immediately, and I personally will do everything I can to augment the arguments she is making to the Co-op. I know that the Post Office will join us in that endeavour.

The Post Office is still advertising the opportunity, and its field team visited the local area last week to explore possible opportunities and further engage with other local businesses. The Post Office will always consider all possible options for replacing a branch and restoring a service to the community. If it concludes that it is not feasible to restore a main-style branch, such as the one run by Costcutter, it will explore other options, such as the possibility of introducing one of its smaller “local plus” models, which actually offer at least 95% of post offices’ most-used products and services. Those opportunities are also in the frame.

The Post Office welcomes and considers applications from any suitable retailer following its advertising process. Post offices across the UK are run successfully in many varied businesses and locations, including farm shops, local authority offices, fish and chip shops, garages, pubs, libraries and community hubs. We need to think outside the box if we are to benefit the hon. Lady’s constituents.

I assure the hon. Lady that the Post Office is committed to finding a solution to restore the services to her community. It does not give up on communities, even if these issues take time to rectify. I will be attending the reopening of a post office service in my constituency, in Quarry Bank, where the post office has been shut now for seven years. I do not think she will have to wait that long to get her service restored, but it is wonderful when a service is restored. It is perfectly doable.

Our commitment to the network and the support that taxpayers and the Government have given it will help to ensure that post office services remain in our communities. I encourage the local Co-op to reconsider the benefits to itself and the community of running a post office. As I have explained, the Post Office works hard to set out all the benefits to potential partners. It has assured me that it will continue to explore possible solutions to restore a service to the hon. Lady’s constituents in Burncross, and I have asked it to keep her informed of any developments. I know that she will keep abreast of any developments anyway, but I also know that Post Office representatives will be happy to continue to work with her. She is fighting for a service which is of great social value to her constituents, and which can be of commercial value to the prospective partner that I truly hope will be found so that a post office service can return to the Burncross community.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is a vital part of the economy. It is very important that more young people are brought into farming and given the chance to do this extraordinarily interesting and valuable pursuit. This country is highly food secure. The Government support new and young farmers through the increased basic payment scheme payments and are committed to increasing the number of apprenticeships in food and farming. I cannot resist adding that I hope that people will have a chance, in due course, to study agri-tech at the New Model in Technology and Engineering institute in Herefordshire.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

T8. Ministers spoke earlier about securing the best possible trade deal for the UK in the context of Brexit, but what evidence does the Secretary of State have that a new UK-EU trade agreement can be completed within two years? Do the Government accept that if such an agreement is not possible, an interim transitional arrangement will be required?

[Greg Clark]

We first have to make sure, through consultation with business, industry and other groups across the country, that we get our negotiating mandate informed and right. Then we need to begin the negotiations, and then we can make those judgments.

Steel Industry

Angela Smith Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. There have been warm and welcome words from the Government about an industrial strategy. The Opposition have been talking about that for the past six years, but be that as it may, the Government are there and we want to work with them over the next few months to form that industrial strategy. There are immediate issues that need to be resolved, hopefully in the autumn statement, and there are further long-term issues in relation to an industrial strategy, how we form that strategy by sector and how the steel sector needs specific treatment in order to go forward.

The other aspect of the steel industry’s significance is the jobs it provides, the communities it forms and has formed, and the culture of which I am proudly a part. More than 30,000 people work in the steel industry, from watermen to control panel engineers and from craft workers to lab technicians. What is important is not only the numbers but where in the country those jobs are, because as well as adjusting the mix of our economy to include more manufacturing, a long-term aspiration of successive Governments has been to rebalance the economy away from London. The UK steel industry supplies more than 10,000 jobs in Yorkshire and the Humber, 8,500 in Wales, 4,000 in the west midlands, 2,000 in my own region, the north-east, and at least 1,000 in Scotland. Those regions are desperate for jobs and investment, and they have been the worst hit by the decline in manufacturing and domestic industry.

Simply put, if the Prime Minister is serious about spreading opportunity around our nation, she cannot abandon the steel industry. Steelworkers across the UK are not asking for charity, merely for access to a level playing field on which to compete with steelmakers from across the world, but in a number of ways, UK steel is fighting an uphill battle. The trade tariffs that protect American steel producers from Chinese steel are many times those in place to protect British producers. Despite limited Government assistance, energy for British steel producers remains more expensive than for our European competitors, and Government-led infrastructure projects, most recently Trident, continue to use foreign-made steel instead of British alternatives.

Where our industry can compete and has been leading the world is in our people and our skills. It is difficult to estimate the value of the institutional knowledge and experience in Port Talbot, Stocksbridge, Skinningrove or Sheerness, but it has helped those communities to stay afloat and their steelworks to function. The Materials Processing Institute in Teesside is producing world-leading research, and has received visits from German, Slovak and Swedish Government representatives who wish to draw on our expertise in this country.

It is testament to the combination of those institutional skills, the experience of steel communities around the country and the cutting-edge research of institutes such as the MPI that the productivity of the steel industry has consistently improved over the last decades. It is for those reasons that the UK steel industry should be seen as an opportunity—a reservoir of potential—rather than, as it is sometimes called, a burden on a modern economy.

We should be wary of how quickly that reservoir can evaporate. A steel or metals industry cannot be created from scratch overnight. The average age of a steelworker is growing, and the current crisis means fewer young people are coming into the industry. Without a secure future, the skills developed over decades could be lost. Those skills are not important only for the steel industry. I recently met representatives from Metalysis—a company that uses an innovative process developed at Cambridge University to produce metal powders and alloys that will be vital for 3D printing—who emphasised to me the importance of those skills grown in the steel industry for their business. To allow that experience and research reservoir to dry up with the decline of the steel industry would not merely affect the future of steel in the UK, but would cut off our competitive advantage for the metals sector.

Rather than let that advantage disappear, we should build on that potential by creating a steel sector catapult and a metal materials strategy, through which knowledge can be shared, built upon and turned into results for British industry. I hope the Government will work with MPI and members of the all-party parliamentary group on steel and metal related industries to fashion a new bid for that catapult. That is something the Government could commit to today that would show that they are serious about the future of the industry. I hope the Minister will remark on that later.

Steel in the UK is not an odd nostalgia but a viable industry with a future. It does not need charity but access to a level playing field on which to compete. If given that access, it is reasonable to believe the industry could be the world leader it already is. There are immediate challenges, though. The five asks on energy costs, business rates, Chinese dumping and procurement have still not been fully delivered on by the Government, and they demand the Government’s immediate attention. They can be acted on now and the solutions announced in the autumn statement.

The drop in sterling and the change in global steel price is not a solid foundation on which to build the steel industry’s future. The Government must not believe that their short-term work is done. They must take action, with long-term milestones and with a long-term view, so that not only people in the House know where they stand, but investors in the industry know exactly what the 20 or 30-year view is, and associated industries that rely on steel know exactly what to expect.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Members across the House could be forgiven for thinking that the Government have assumed that, because the sense of immediate crisis appears to have passed, their foot can be taken off the brake and that we can rely on the industrial strategy emerging next spring to address the problems. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is definitely not the case, and that the Government need to keep at this, on top of it, and give it the priority it deserves now?

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. There are a number of issues within that general question that still hang over the industry. I am at pains to talk about the broader industry and the new, smaller companies that are emerging. The debate tends to be dominated by issues around Tata, for obvious reasons, but we need to look at how we develop smaller companies, hence our desire for the steel sector catapult to be established. Although those smaller companies have come to the fore, they have told me directly that if a steel sector catapult existed, they would have been able to get where they are now a lot quicker and with a lot less capital, which would release more capital to do other things or to develop other research and development potential. One of the most profound issues, which I will go into later on, is the British Steel pension scheme.

Producing steel is a massively energy-intensive process. Despite the Government’s policy, which compensates energy-intensive industries for the disproportionate impact of carbon reduction measures on them, British energy prices are still far higher than those in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. The steel industry is aware of the need to transition to low-carbon energy sources, but only in a way that makes business sense.

Everyone I have spoken to in the steel industry welcomes the inclusion of the energy portfolio in the same Department as the business and industry strategy portfolio. That makes sense, and it is about time it happened. However, the Department has yet to respond to the EEF’s five recommendations aimed at addressing the competitiveness of UK energy costs. Since the initial meeting with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on this issue in June, EEF estimates that the disparity between UK and European energy costs means the UK steel industry has paid £20 million more in energy bills than their continental competitors. What is being done on energy costs? What benefit has the sector felt since the creation of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Anna Turley) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) on securing this debate. It is always timely to have a debate on steel, such is its importance to the economy, but at this particular moment, given the wide range of issues we face, including Brexit, it seems particularly timely.

I want briefly to go back to October 2015, when the SSI crisis hit TV screens. As we know, the company went into liquidation and 6,000 people lost their jobs. That is 6,000 men and women lost to the industry, potentially forever, and 6,000 families who face an uncertain future. Yet since the collapse of SSI and the problems that Tata faced earlier this year, although there have been some improvements in the conditions faced by steel producers—not least because of the 16% devaluation of the pound—there are still major problems facing the steel industry.

The Chinese dumping of steel continues, and the UK is still blocking attempts to put meaningful tariffs on that steel as it comes into Europe. It has never been about protectionism—this is a really important point. Rather, it is about effectively countering the hidden subsidies that the Chinese state has embedded in its own production of steel. I have listened to the Chinese and have heard them say they will roll out figures on their production and about how they are reducing the volumes of production, but they never, ever refer to the fact that they are effectively undercutting the global steel market by embedding subsidies in their pricing structures.

Let us not forget that we still have all the other issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland mentioned in his opening remarks: the five key asks that were developed some time ago by UK Steel, supported by the union Community and supported by parliamentarians across the House. My hon. Friend did an excellent job setting out the key strategic issues facing the industry at this point. I will not go through them all again, because he did that brilliantly and the case is made.

As would be expected of me, and because of the situation I face in my constituency, I want to focus briefly on the situation with the Tata holdings in the UK. Although the sale of Port Talbot has been suspended while Tata and ThyssenKrupp talk about a joint venture, Speciality Steels, which has plants in Sheffield—in Stocksbridge, in my constituency—and Rotherham, is still up for sale.

I do not apologise for rehearsing the point about the importance of the Stocksbridge plant. Members have heard me say before that the steel produced at Stocksbridge is in the top 7% of the value chain for global steelmaking. Two thirds of the aviation steel made globally is made in Stocksbridge: it makes steel for landing gear, for the Rolls-Royce engine and for the sliding doors on the aircraft body. It is an incredibly important and valued part of our steel industry. I have even heard it said—by people who frankly do not know a great deal about what goes on there—that there is effectively old-fashioned steelmaking going on in that facility, in something that looks like a shed. I know that the Minister has visited Stocksbridge and so entirely understands my point. What goes on inside that building—that very old facility—represents some of the best and most advanced steelmaking technology in the world.

I am incredibly proud of what Stocksbridge does, and I know that the community is too. We are confident that the plant will have a future and we know that the right investment plan can secure that future. It has got the vacuum induction melting facility, but it needs further capital investment if it wants not only to maintain its place in the value chain, but to move up it. That is the ambition: to move into the era of 3D printing mentioned by my hon. Friend. Stocksbridge wants to be able to produce—if hon. Members will forgive the layperson’s way of saying it—the powdered steel, which we know will enormously increase the value of what we make there. That is something like £30,000 to £40,000 a tonne initially. It is critically important that we get the right buyer for Tata Speciality Steels: a buyer who is in it for the long term and prepared to make the investment.

Recent reports about the apparent boardroom manoeuvrings at Tata are a little worrying, to say the least. Given the current instability at the global board-level at Tata, I ask the Minister what the Government are doing to ensure that the sale of Tata Speciality Steels in South Yorkshire is not compromised by the uncertainties apparent at boardroom level at Tata HQ. What communication is he having with Tata at the highest level? I do not expect the detail, or for commercial sensitivity to be compromised, but can he tell us what discussions are taking place to make sure that the sale of Speciality Steels is given the priority by Tata that it deserves?

Yesterday, during Prime Minister’s Question Time, I raised the Prime Minister’s visit to India next week. I did not really get the clear answer I was looking for, but can I now ask the Minister to commit to ensuring that the delegation led by the Prime Minister that is going out to India next week takes the opportunity to raise with Tata the business of ensuring a sustainable future for Speciality Steels and, indeed, the other Tata holdings at Port Talbot and elsewhere? In other words, what are the Government doing to support Speciality Steels, Port Talbot and the other Tata holdings in the forthcoming period?

If we are to have a successful steel industry, we need demand for steel produced both for home markets and abroad. Recently we have heard some pretty bad news about the demand for UK content even in British infrastructure projects. We all know about the recent decision to award the contract to supply the steel for the pressure hulls of the new successor Trident submarines to a French company, despite the fact that we have the capacity here in the UK and two UK firms submitted a joint bid for the work. There are other upcoming projects that could, with a bit of support and leverage from the Government, absolutely maximise the use of UK steel.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

On the Ministry of Defence contract, which occurred two years ago, when two British firms—or two UK sites—came forward with ideas for the plate steel for the hulls on the successor programme, they were actively told to go away by the MOD, as it had already procured the contract from a French site. The two British sites involved, which wanted to come together and provide a solution, just wanted a bit of time—given the time that has subsequently passed, those two sites could have provided the steel. That was another missed opportunity in a period when we were still members of the EU, and defence contracts are exempted from competition regulations.

[Angela Smith]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. His point relates entirely to the situation with shale gas. My hon. Friend made an impassioned case for the shale gas industry earlier this afternoon, and I entirely support him in that. I support the signing of the memorandum of understanding by Community and by the GMB. We all know that the domestic supply of shale gas will help not only the steel industry, but a range of industries in the UK, because it will provide valuable feedstock for the chemicals industry, for example.

Are the Government continuing to support the development of the relevant steelmaking capacity to ensure, for instance, that UK steel will be used in developing the new industry? There have been difficulties in ensuring that the UK steel market can provide that capacity, but we know that work is ongoing, in partnership with the oil and gas industry, to get over those obstacles and make it possible for the UK steelmaking capacity to deliver the steel that the shale gas industry needs. That relates entirely to the point my hon. Friend made: will we ensure this time that we do not miss an opportunity to expand the UK steel industry and exploit new opportunities that become available, such as shale gas?

The same can be said of the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. Is the Minister providing input on the process to the so-called Hendry review? That is critically important. There are huge advantages for the UK steel industry from that project, if it goes ahead.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is giving a passionate speech, as always. It is also important to note that the Swansea bay tidal lagoon is just the first in a number of projects. The economies of scale coming out of that could deliver lagoons in various places around the country—far larger, in fact, than at Swansea bay—so the potential for steel and steelmaking from lagoon projects is enormous.

[Angela Smith]

I completely agree. Potentially, this is an exciting new industry for the UK that would provide reliable baseload energy to meet the nation’s needs. The steel necessary for building those tidal energy projects will come not just from south Wales, but from Firth Rixson and Forgemasters in Sheffield. It will involve some of the best and most technologically sophisticated steelmaking available in the UK. Is the Minister absolutely committed to ensuring that the voice of the steel industry is heard at the heart of Government in looking at whether we give the project the go-ahead? Can we look forward to hearing something specific about that in the autumn statement?

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady’s point about tidal and wind energy is absolutely key. Does she agree that the Government’s lack of support and their pulling of support, particularly in the wind energy sector, will have a knock-on impact? That is a serious opportunity for steel production missed by the Government.

[Angela Smith]

A number of opportunities have been missed over the years, and wind energy is one of them. The turbine-making capacity is not now available here in the UK. Wherever possible, it would be good to see the Government attempting to work with industry to put those mistakes right and see what we can do to develop that capacity in future.

Unlocking all that potential will mean an active industrial policy from the Government. Will the Minister therefore reassure the House that UK steel will be at the heart of the forthcoming industrial strategy? As was mentioned earlier, will he give an absolute commitment that steel—which, let us remember, is a foundation industry—is an ongoing priority as we await the publication of the strategy and that it will be at the heart of everything that the new Department does between now and next spring, when the strategy is introduced?

In an industry where investment is vital and timescales are long, certainty is important, so my concluding remarks are of course about Brexit. It is my firm view that, as an industry, steel needs full access to the single market. That is vital, especially when one considers that 50% of all the industry’s exports go to the European Union. Given that the automotive industry has secured a guarantee from the Government, as we leave the European Union, to allow the necessary investment and ensure that it continues in Sunderland—I absolutely welcome that, by the way; it is great news for Sunderland and really important for the UK economy—will the Minister tell us whether we can expect the same sort of guarantee for the steel industry? It is critical that the steel industry should be able to continue to enjoy access to its key markets. Let us remember that many thousands of jobs depend on a successful steel sector.

Steel is vital to a country that wants to continue to be a manufacturer. We need the Government to be fully engaged in helping the industry not just to survive but to develop and to provide security against the uncertainties of the global economy. The future is not going to be easy and although Brexit is frequently posited as bringing many opportunities—these nebulous opportunities that have yet to materialise—we can be absolutely certain that it will deliver more than its fair share of challenges. The steel sector will need the Government to be an active partner to help it to deal with the uncertainties it faces.

What happens to the steel industry if, when we Brexit in two years’ time—presumably in April 2019—the Government have not negotiated a long-term deal? What happens if they have not even be able to negotiate a transitional deal with the European Union? What happens to the steel industry if we end up falling back on World Trade Organisation rules? The Government need to be clear and to work closely with the steel industry and Parliament to ensure that those uncertainties are minimised and thought through, and that we are absolutely certain that, in the worst-case scenario, the Government will be there with a plan to support the steel industry as it moves forward—indeed, to support all manufacturing industry. That question is critical and is worrying the business sector to a degree that I have never seen before in my lifetime in politics.

A country without a steel industry cannot class itself as a major economy. The stakes are that high, and I implore the Minister and the Government to do everything necessary to make sure we secure a thriving steel industry for the future, preferably with the UK as a full member of the single market. Whatever happens, we need to ensure that the Government, who had no plans for Brexit, certainly have a plan if the worst materialises in two years’ time.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Moving from a big “L” to a big “C”—or should I say a deep “C”?—I call Mr Peter Bone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

I will take that point on board, but the hon. Member will know that much of that steel was rolled and developed in Scotland. Nevertheless, I thank him for his clarification.

I was going on to say that one of the reasons that situation came about was the closure of the Ravenscraig steel mill by a previous Tory Government in 1992. I know that Labour Members—the predecessors of the Labour Members here today—fought hard alongside our party’s Members to save Ravenscraig. I pay tribute to all those Members who tried to save Ravenscraig.

That comment by the former Prime Minister reveals the lack of understanding about Scottish steel and indeed about steel across the UK, and the cavalier attitude with which such statements have been made about the industry. We cannot let that continue; there must be, as so many Members have said today, proper commitment from the Government.

I say that because the issues that we are discussing today are not limited to the steel industry but extend to British industry in general. Post-Brexit, the uncertainty and anxiety are greater than ever, because we have no idea what kind of deal many industries will get. We know what the car industry will get, although we do not have the detail of that deal. We do not know whether other deals will be made sector by sector, or area by area. Before the Brexit vote, we knew that the international demand for steel was falling: the OECD had said that excess global capacity was expected to widen to 645 million tonnes. Now, post-referendum, the pound is falling, so UK steel will be cheaper for foreign buyers, but as other Members have said, the cost of the imported raw materials will be higher in the long-term, which will make things very difficult.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) on securing this debate and on the passion with which he spoke. He highlighted the contrast between the approach and guarantees given to Nissan and the automotive industry with the support for the steel industry. That is ironic, given that the World Steel Association has said that on average 900 kg of steel is used per vehicle. So we will be making cars in Britain but importing the steel to make them and many parts of those cars. I hope that irony is not lost on the Government and that they take this issue very seriously.

Strong anti-dumping measures are critical. They were nearly secured with our EU partners. In our view, it is indefensible that the UK Government blocked EU attempts to regulate Chinese steel. The hon. Member for Corby spoke about the importance of the all-party group on steel and metal related industries and its collaboration with others. He made a plea to Tata for more information and said that the Government’s leadership would be key. Although he is a self-professed Brexiteer, he wants better leadership. However, given that it was the UK that blocked the EU attempts to regulate Chinese steel, I am not sure how he thinks the UK will do a better job. He was not able to answer that question earlier; perhaps the Minister will be able to answer it. We are all interested to know how the UK industry will fare if the UK ends up operating under World Trade Organisation rules, as the Secretary of State for International Trade has said. To be fair, the hon. Member for Corby was encouraging his colleagues in the Government to be proactive in their industrial strategy and said they needed to champion steel.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Hillsborough spoke passionately about the speciality skills and products produced in her constituency and the importance of the Prime Minister’s visit to India next week in ensuring the future of speciality steel—

[Angela Smith]

I was the Member for Sheffield Hillsborough; I now represent Penistone and Stocksbridge. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), is now the MP who represents Hillsborough.

[Hannah Bardell]

My sincere apologies. My lack of parliamentary constituency knowledge has failed me there, so I sincerely apologise to the hon. Lady and I thank her for her intervention. I will be honest—on this occasion, Google has let me down.

The hon. Lady spoke about how a country without a steel industry could not call itself a major economy. We in Scotland are proud and glad to have secured steel and to call ourselves a major economy, but we worry for our neighbours and friends in other parts of the UK. I agreed with so much of what she said, particularly on renewables and single market access.

The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) gave us an insight into which team he is on; it is clear that he is backing the new “May Way” and not the old Cameron regime. He urged us to be positive about the future and mooted the merits of free trade and market access. He agreed that we should be tackling the issue of Chinese dumping as well.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards)—I hope I have got that right—talked about the future of steelmaking in Wales and about his party’s desire to remain in the single market, as well as the importance of the single market and the customs union. He also highlighted the short-term upturn in the steel industry and the report from Swansea University that said there are opportunities in the long term to strengthen factories such as Port Talbot, but swift strategic action was essential. I wish him well in getting either swiftness or strategy from the Government. He also spoke about the Liberty and Excalibur deal and the importance of giving it careful consideration.

The hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) spoke extremely passionately about the SSI closure—it was a highly efficient and productive plant—and the devastating impact that has had on her constituency. I congratulate her on the work she has done. I agree that it is devastating that the plant could not be mothballed. I am at pains to know why that could not have been done. I cannot understand it. I hope the Minister has more than warm words for her and her constituents.

The hon. Lady’s colleague the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) spoke about the tragedy of Port Talbot and the cloud hanging over him and his constituency. Again, the message was clear: swift and decisive action is needed, particularly given that the cost of raw materials will rise once we leave the EU.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) spoke of his admiration for his colleagues and what they were doing every day. Other Members spoke about the personal impact the issue is having. It is so important that we send that message to people outside. Members are in their constituencies as much as they can be, but with so much business here, balancing things is a big challenge. I know from travelling up and down the country how difficult that can be. We may have many differences of opinion, but the hon. Members for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), for Neath (Christina Rees) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden) sent a clear message. They made passionate pleas to the Government.

The consensus and the message is that we need strategy, action, investment and access. Those things are not outside the grasp or ability of any Government. The Government need to act now to save jobs and an industry that is vital to constituencies and areas across the UK. Through that, the communities of Members here today can be protected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I hope I have never been associated with sloth—my mother might disagree. I do not know the background to it fully enough, but the more substantive point is that, despite that weight of money, more clearly needs to be done. We have not solved the issue. The pace may be important, but the fundamental challenge for us all is that we have not cracked the problem.

[Angela Smith]

I am pleased to hear that last comment, because the wholesale costs of energy are also of major concern, not just for steel but for the chemicals industry and all other energy-intensive industries, so the Government need to move on the reform of the wholesale energy market.

[Mr Hurd]

I will come on to that issue. The point I am trying to make is that the Government have not been all talk: we have taken action on energy.

I refute the allegation that the UK has been a fundamental obstacle on dumping. We have pressed for anti-dumping measures, specifically on wire rod, seamless tubes, rebar and cold rolled products. The EU now has 39 trade defence measures in place, and imports have fallen significantly as a result. We are an active member of the G20, which, as hon. Members know, set up a forum to look at the issue of dumping. The lesser duty rule is an issue; I do not know whether there is party division on that. Our position is that measures taken against dumping need to be proportionate because we have to balance the interests of consumers, the industry and businesses. We have been and will continue to be a very active voice on dumping.

My hon. Friend the Member for Corby rightly talked about procurement. Again, the UK has been the leader in the EU on responding to the new flexibilities, and new guidelines are in place. The feedback from the chief executives at the meeting last week was that they did not really want to talk about procurement because they recognised that action had been taken and other issues were more important to them, not least business rates, which I acknowledge continue to be an issue. The Government have reformed business rates in a way that is designed to present a net benefit to the UK economy. Steel companies will benefit from that reform. Does it go as far as the steel industry wants? No. Are there big complexities, not least around the affordability and doability of what the steel industry wants? Yes, but we will continue to try to work through them.

On the strategic direction, the Government have stepped up and offered to fund the capability study and work with the sector to identify the capabilities that are needed—that was the point made by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)—and growth opportunities for the future. There has been action, but we are clear that our work is not done. There is no room for complacency, given the pressures on this critically important industry.

We are looking at all the options for energy. They are complicated, because what we have got to do is legal and, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland said, a consensus has to be built on who pays. If the steel industry pays less, the chances are that someone else is going to have to pay more. Our instinct is to focus on a strategic, sustainable approach; we have to move on from the sticking-plaster approach. I am glad hon. Members are nodding.

I am going to accelerate to fulfil my pledge. Of course Brexit brings tremendous uncertainties. As hon. Members know, we have not even started the negotiation process, let alone finished it, but I say to them what I said to the chief executives last week: this Department is your liaison point. It is our responsibility to listen very carefully to the sector to make sure that the issues you face are totally understood by the Government. In that respect, the steel sector is the same as the automotive sector and other sectors. Our responsibility is to listen to the sector and understand the granularity of the issues it faces so my Secretary of State, who is at the table with the decision makers in this process, is fully informed and able to represent the industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

T8. The expansion of Heathrow would create a demand for 370,000 tonnes of steel and secure 700 steel jobs, so it is not only in the interests of the UK economy more generally that we expand Heathrow but specifically in the interests of the manufacturing sector. Why do we not just get on with it, have the vote here in the Chamber and get on with the building of the third runway?

[Greg Clark]

We do need an upgrade across many different forms of infrastructure, and that will have very important benefits to the steel industry, including in Sheffield.