European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Debate between Anna Turley and John Bercow

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, I will hear a point of order from the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley).

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your advice. I was shocked to hear the Secretary of State mention the name of Mo Mowlam in his introductory remarks. Mo Mowlam said that the EU contributed to the Northern Ireland peace process and that it was crucial in underpinning dialogue and cross-community contacts. She emphasised the precariousness of the process and the need for continued “substantial” support from the European Union. May I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, on how we can seek to defend her legacy when it is abused in such a way?

[Mr Speaker]

As the hon. Lady knows, I recognise the sincerity with which she speaks, and the constituency basis, of which I hope colleagues are conscious, that motivates her to defend the legacy of Mo Mowlam. As she also knows, she has successfully found her own salvation through that bogus, but sincere, point of order. Her point is on the record, and it can be studied by colleagues in the House and by people outside.

Carbon Capture Usage and Storage

Debate between Anna Turley and John Bercow

Thursday 25th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Select Committee statement. Anna Turley will speak on her subject for up to 10 minutes. I remind colleagues that, because the statement is analogous with a ministerial statement, no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, the Chair will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and will call Anna Turley to respond to them in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions, and should be brief. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.

I call Anna Turley to speak on behalf of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a true privilege for me to make this statement on behalf of the Committee. I do so in the absence of its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for providing the time for us to introduce our report on carbon capture usage and storage, which we published this morning, and I pay tribute to all my colleagues on the Committee, who have worked extremely hard. It is great to see some of them in the Chamber this afternoon. I also pay tribute to our brilliant Clerks, who do an enormous amount of work and without whom we could not produce anything at all.

The climate change protest that we have seen this week, and the words of Greta Thunberg in this place, show that there are hugely important national, local and international political decisions to be made on climate change. How we can drastically cut carbon emissions and achieve clean growth is an issue that we must devote huge energy to answering. Experts agree that carbon capture usage and storage—CCUS—will be necessary to meet the UK’s existing climate change targets at the lowest cost: without it, the costs of meeting our targets will double. Scientists also agree that it would not be credible for the UK to adopt a more ambitious net zero target—a question on which the Committee on Climate Change will provide its advice next week—if we fail to deploy CCUS at scale.

As our report explains, the UK is very lucky to have one of the most favourable environments in the globe for this technology. However, CCUS has suffered from turbulent policy support for 15 years. Most significantly, two major competitions to demonstrate the technology—worth £1 billion—have been cancelled, one in 2011 and one in 2016, after hundreds of millions of pounds of investment by both industry and Government. That the technology works is not in question. There are 18 large- scale operational facilities worldwide, but no commercial-scale CCUS plants have yet been built in the UK.

The Government’s clean growth strategy sets a new ambition to

“have the option to deploy CCUS at scale during the 2030s, subject to costs coming down sufficiently.”

The Committee welcomes that intention, but we are concerned that it does not demonstrate a sufficiently strong commitment and limits our climate change ambitions, the future for our heavy industries and the potential for investment in CCUS. CCUS is already the cheapest option—in some cases the only option—for decarbonising many of our energy-intensive industries. Our witnesses were optimistic about the potential for cost reductions but told us that these will come through deploying the technology, not by waiting for further research and development.

The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth—I pay tribute to her for her support—has explained that she has no target for CCUS for developers to meet in order to access funding, and that needs to be rectified. We recommend that the Government prioritise the development of clear ambitions that will bolster their renewed efforts to kick-start CCUS. Rather than seeking unspecified cost reductions, they should set out plans to ensure that projects are brought forward at least cost. It is also not clear what scale of deployment the Government are targeting for the 2030s, so we have recommended that they provide ambition and clarity to investors by adopting specific targets to store 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2030, and 20 million tonnes by 2035, in line with the advice of the Committee on Climate Change.

The UK has a unique opportunity to lead global development of a new CCUS industry, thanks to our expansive geological storage resource and our world-class oil and gas supply chains. However, despite that favourable position, CCUS remains a relatively immature technology. We argue that this should be seen as a benefit, as it strengthens the potential for UK leadership, and we recommend that the Government prioritise CCUS in order to benefit from growing international demand for low-carbon products and services. We risk losing our early mover advantage if the UK’s slow progress on CCUS continues.

CCUS can impose significant costs on industrial processes, but a failure to develop it could force many heavy industries to close in the coming decades. Witnesses were frustrated that policy decisions have historically focused on the costs of the technology, rather than the benefits. The creation of a CCUS network on the east coast alone could create 225,000 jobs and boost the economy by over £160 billion by 2050. But the benefits of CCUS appear to be poorly understood across Government Departments, not least by the Treasury.

The Government have set a target to commission the first CCUS facility by the mid-2020s, but we heard that might be too slow to ensure that at-scale deployment can be achieved by the 2030s. A more ambitious target, with the development of CCUS clusters in multiple regions across the country, would strengthen the Government’s strategy for developing prosperous communities across the UK. Our report recommends that the Government raise their ambition and aim to develop initial CCUS projects in at least three clusters by 2025, minimising the risk of further delays and ensuring that productivity benefits accrue across the country.

My own region of Teesside has an ambition to become one of Europe’s first clean industrial zones using CCS. The Teesside Collective in my constituency, a consortium of local industries, stands ready and waiting to start decarbonising UK industry. Teesside is home to nearly 60% of the UK’s major energy users in the process and chemicals sectors. To keep these industries thriving and competitive in a low-carbon world, we need to get serious about cleaning up their emissions. In 2016 our industrial emissions fell massively, but that was largely due to the closure of our steelworks. It goes without saying that we cannot meet our emission targets that way; it is immoral.

The internationally renowned North East of England Process Industry Cluster represents chemical-based industries across the region, but they are particularly concentrated in Teesside. The sector generates £26 billion in annual sales and £12 billion in exports, and it is the north-east’s largest industrial sector. The chemicals sector is up against strong international competition, and NEPIC estimates that the use of CCS could create and safeguard almost 250,000 jobs by 2060. Last year the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative announced a strategic partnership with six major oil and gas companies to construct the world’s first ever gas-powered energy plant on Teesside. The clean gas proposals, when delivered, would deploy full-chain CCUS.

Another proposal, the H21 report, commissioned by two of the UK’s gas distributors, Northern Gas Networks and Cadent, sets out a solution to decarbonise heat in the north of England by replacing natural gas with hydrogen. The proposals would also utilise CCS to make hydrogen projection zero-carbon. That is something the all-party parliamentary group on hydrogen, which I am proud to chair, is working hard to champion. As more than half of the UK’s hydrogen is produced in Teesside, the area’s potential to capitalise on CCUS is again evident.

It is clear that the private sector is invested in the huge potential for carbon capture and storage. However, when we met Teesside Collective representatives during our evidence-gathering session, they were frustrated that the Treasury did not seem yet to have fully bought into the idea. Leadership and funding from the public sector and the Government will be crucial for getting this technology off the ground. The Government’s attempts to develop CCUS have previously centred on funding competitions. Although we welcome the Government’s renewed promise of funding support, we are concerned that yet another competition may not be best suited to the needs of the sector.

During the Committee’s visit to Teesside, we heard strong opposition to the idea of a third competition, because it creates tension between competition and collaboration. The UK’s CCUS community has had a strong culture of collaboration to date, but that is being undermined by the competition structure. They pitched projects against one another and expressly limited knowledge sharing, which in turn slowed technological progress, research and development, and cost reduction. The Government should urgently consult on better approaches to allocating funding for CCUS industry clusters, and to promoting collaboration across the UK, including in those clusters that might take longer to get going.

CCUS presents huge opportunities for the UK economy, and it is a vital technology if we are going to meet our climate change targets. I congratulate the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth on her championing of this technology. However, the Government’s targets for CCUS remain far too ambiguous to ensure investment. It is also concerning that not all of Whitehall seems to see the advantages of CCUS. The Treasury has been singled out to us over and again for its lack of awareness of the benefits. It is imperative that any future decisions on how and when to fund this technology are taken with a full and thorough understanding of the critical role it is expected to play, not only in decarbonisation across the whole economy, but in extending the life of and modernising UK industry, such as that in Teesside.

Finally, in response to the Committee’s report, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has said:

“We are pleased that the Committee shares our belief that CCUS can play an important role in meeting our climate targets.”

I am afraid that is disappointing, because it completely glosses over the profound differences between the Government’s approach and that of the Committee. The Government are saying that CCUS can be part of the solution, subject to costs coming down sufficiently, to a figure that they are not yet prepared to specify. We are saying that CCUS must be part of delivering our climate change targets at the lowest cost. Having decided to go ahead with CCUS, the question now is how to keep the costs down. For the sake of jobs and the economy in areas such as Teesside, and for the future of our planet and our climate targets, we need no more words, just action.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Anna Turley and John Bercow

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), a fellow North Yorkshire colleague. He made some powerful and thoughtful points, in particular on the disparity of funding between the north and the south. I enjoyed his contribution very much.

This is the second time today that I have had to stand up in this Chamber to fight against the unfair and disproportionate funding that is leaving my constituents behind. The funding formula is leaving them at the bottom of the table. Areas that are more deprived, as we have heard from so many Members across the Chamber, are not getting the funding and support they need. There is clearly unfairness in the funding system. It is vital that we make that point today. The Government have to look at it again.

Redcar and Cleveland Council has lost £90 million since 2010. That is 35% of our funding. How on earth can a council be expected to continue to provide the level of service it wants to provide for its residents, particularly in areas like mine with high deprivation and high child poverty, when it has lost 35% of its funding? Residents are seeing and feeling the impact. As many colleagues have said today, we have seen a huge increase in the crisis of social care for adults and for those with disabilities. There are huge challenges around mental health support, particularly for young people, and there has been a rise in the number of children being taken into care. The situation is just not sustainable. Something has to give. The Government must look again.

In Redcar and Cleveland, we have lost 1,100 jobs in the past nine years. We have faced not just the tragedy of those individual job losses, but the knock-on effect of spending power being taken out of the community. On top of other job losses, that is just not acceptable. In 2010, I worked for a local government think-tank. The big pressure around the cuts was the argument that said, “Councils have reserves. They can dip into their reserves and the cuts will hardly affect them.” Redcar and Cleveland has already had to spend £14 million of its reserves on trying to balance the books. There is nothing left. The cuts are going to the bone.

On top of that, Redcar and Cleveland lost business rates in the region of £10 million when we lost our steelworks. This is simply not acceptable. I have spoken to Ministers about the unfair system where Redcar and Cleveland was asked to pay £2.6 million for business rates relating to an industrial property that was revaluated that never even crossed its desk. It is not acceptable that Redcar and Cleveland has had to pay for business rates it never actually saw.

One in four children in Redcar and Cleveland are living in poverty. One in 10 four and five-year-olds are classified as obese, and that doubles by the age of 10 to 11. Currently 300 children—one in 10—are looked after. That has risen 35% since April 2017—a 35% rise in just two years.

I thank Sue Jeffrey and the Labour team in Redcar and Cleveland for their excellent work. They have done a superb job of dealing with the implications of the devastating cuts, protecting people on the frontline and supporting the most vulnerable people in our communities. They have kept our five leisure centres and all our libraries open. They have bust a gut to look after the poor and the needy. They are doing a superb job with both arms tied behind their backs.

Councils are at breaking point and this settlement gives the people of Redcar and Cleveland nothing. When people are already having to pay more council tax—an unfair tax—they are paying twice for services that are being cut to the bone. That cannot continue.

[Mr Speaker]

Four-minute speeches are now preferable—much more preferable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anna Turley and John Bercow

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister was extremely clear; there was no chuntering there, that’s for sure.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

T4. Will the Secretary of State inform us whether it is now official DWP policy to scan claimants’ Facebook and other social media pages for evidence of spending patterns such as meals or days out with their family, and to then use that evidence to turn down illness or disability-related benefits? If this is approved DWP policy, will she put the guidance before the House?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anna Turley and John Bercow

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is a great pleasure to welcome back to the House the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley). I know that the House will join me in doing so.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is great to be back.

We have ambitious plans on Teesside to create 20,000 jobs on the former SSI steel site. The biggest issue holding us back is, obviously, the ownership of the site. Can the Secretary of State update us on what conversations he is having with the official receiver and the Thai banks to enable us to fulfil our potential, create jobs, and bring investment back to the site?

Points of Order

Debate between Anna Turley and John Bercow

Monday 27th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for advance notice of it; I thank him for raising the matter with me. Let me confirm the following. First of all, nothing disorderly occurred on Friday. Secondly, although I absolutely understand the disappointment of the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) at the failure of her Bill to progress, it would in my experience be extremely unusual for the eighth Bill to make progress. Thirdly, I think the record shows that, when moved, the Bill was objected to at the point at which business was interrupted, namely 2.30 pm. I have been informed by the hon. Gentleman, and I do not dispute it for a moment, that he was not present at that point and therefore could not have objected to it.

Let me conclude by saying this in response to the hon. Gentleman. He has, on a number of occasions, very explicitly blocked Bills, possibly by shouting “Object” and certainly by developing his arguments at a leisurely pace and in detail, which he thinks have required his forensic scrutiny. In other words, he has, by one means or another, blocked many Bills. He did not block this Bill. Simply as a point of fact, because I believe in the intelligibility of our proceedings and people not running away with the wrong idea, he did not block the hon. Lady’s Bill.

The last point I would make—I make it to the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members—is that I really think it would help if Members in all parts of the House treated each other with courtesy. I do not want to be in the position of having to arbitrate in matters of this kind, but where I have been asked factual questions I have given factual answers. Having heard the hon. Gentleman’s point of order and responded very fully to it, I think it only fair to hear from the hon. Lady, if she wishes to speak.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak. I would also like to thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for advance sight of his comments.

There is never, ever any excuse for people to abuse Members of Parliament and the hon. Gentleman’s staff certainly should not have had to wade through such messages. Feelings around animal cruelty run very high. People are very passionate about it, but there is never any excuse for abuse.

I would like to make a point of clarification. First, I was very clear, in what I put out to the media, that it was the Tory Whips who ultimately blocked the Bill. Secondly, this is my first private Member’s Bill, and I had had positive conversations with colleagues on the Government Benches who were very encouraging of it and were, even up until that day, discussing the possibility of it going through. It is a matter of record that the hon. Gentleman spoke for over 90 minutes on the first Bill. Everyone in this House needs to be aware of the consequences of their actions on Bills further down the Order Paper, whether they agree with them or not.

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the hon. Lady says. I do not think I should adjudicate on that, because the hon. Gentleman was perfectly in order in speaking as he did, but she has made her point and some people will agree with her.

With reference to what she said about the Whips having objected, I must admit that at that point I was not here. I was here to see the success of the Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill. Thereafter I had to go to my own constituency, so I was not present. The hon. Lady tells me that the Whips objected. Well, Whips do tend to do these things. It is quite commonplace. It is what they think of as one of their functions from time to time, among other miscellaneous functions—sometimes subterranean functions, but we had better not dwell on that. [Interruption.] I certainly would not make such a disobliging remark about Whips. I always had a relationship with my Whips characterised by trust and understanding: I did not trust them and they did not understand me.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Anna Turley and John Bercow

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Disposal of assets—

“The Charity Commission shall ensure that independent charities are not compelled to use or dispose of their assets in a way which is inconsistent with their charitable purposes.”

New clause 3—Power to make representations—

“(1) A charity may undertake political campaigning or political activity in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes.

(2) A charity may campaign to ensure support for, or to oppose, a change in the law, policy or decisions of central government, local authorities or other public bodies.”

New clause 4—Power to hold hearings on fundraising regulation and charity activity—

“(1) The Commission has the power to hold public hearings with representatives from charities, charity trusts and other relevant bodies on fundraising regulation and charity fundraising activities.

(2) Representatives appearing at the public hearings specified in subsection (1) are protected by legal professional privilege.”

This amendment requires the Charity Commission to hold annual hearings on fundraising regulation and the workings of charities and provides participants with the protection of legal professional privilege.

New clause 5—The Charity Commission as primary guarantor of the regulatory system for fundraising—

“(1) Section 69 of the Charities Act 2006 (Reserve power to control fund-raising by charitable institutions), which inserts section 64A into the Charities 1992 Act (Reserve power to control fund-raising by charitable institutions) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) for “Minister” substitute “Charity Commission”.

(3) After subsection (8) insert—

“(9) The Charity Commission shall report annually to the Minister on the exercise of its powers under this section.

(10) On reviewing the annual report or if the Secretary of State considers the Commission is not effectively exercising its function as guarantor of the regulatory system the Minister may himself exercise the powers under this section.””

This amendment makes the Charity Commission the primary regulator of charities fundraising activities, requires the Charity Commission to report annually to the Cabinet Office on its regulation of charitable fundraising, and allows the Government to intervene in this regulation as a last resort.

Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (3)”.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 12, leave subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) The Commission may issue a warning to a charity trustee, a trustee for a charity or a charity in any way it considers appropriate but may not publish a warning to a wider audience.”

Amendment 10, page 1, line 15, at end insert—

‘(2A) If the Commission decides to publish a warning under subsection (2) it must do so in a manner which does not identify the charity, or charity trustee, in relation to which the warning is issued.”

Amendment 11, page 1, line 16, after “give” insert “at least 14 days”.

Amendment 12, page 2, line 6, leave out subsection (b) and insert—

“(b) such advice or guidance that the Commission considers may assist the charity to remedy the conduct which gave rise to the warning, as referred to in (a) above.”

Government amendment 2.

Amendment (a), line 10 at end add—

‘( ) If the Commission publishes notice that a warning has been withdrawn under subsection (2), the notice must state the reasons for the withdrawal.

( ) No record of a warning withdrawn by the Commission should be held on the Register of Charities.”

Government amendment 3.

Amendment 1, in clause 9, page 10, line 2, at end insert—

‘(22) Before this section comes into force, the Secretary of State shall lay a report before Parliament on the impact of the extension of the disqualification framework on—

(a) people with criminal records who are trustees of, or employed by, charities, and

(b) charities which work with, or employ, ex-offenders.

(23) The report shall include, but not be limited to—

(a) an assessment of the number of people employed by charities who will be affected by the extension of the disqualification framework to cover senior management positions,

(b) an assessment of the number of people who are trustees of, or employed by, charities who will be affected by the extension of the list of specified offences for which people will be automatically disqualified from being a trustee of, or a senior manager in, a charity,

(c) an assessment of the impact of the new disqualification framework on former offenders who are seeking, or intend to seek, employment in the charitable sector, including on their recruitment, retention, career prospects and long-term rehabilitation and resettlement,

(d) an assessment of the impact of the new disqualification framework on former offenders who are currently employed in the charitable sector, including on their retention, career prospects and long-term rehabilitation and resettlement,

(e) an assessment of the impact of the new disqualification framework on people with criminal records who are trustees or employees of charities which are partners in, or are contracted by, community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) and its impact on the successful running of those organisations,

(f) an assessment of the effectiveness of the existing waiver process provided for under section 181 of the Charities Act 2011,

(g) an assessment of the impact of the new disqualification framework on the number of applications for waivers to the Charity Commission,

(h) a description of how the working group set up by the Charity Commission on the waiver process will be constituted, how it will be resourced, what timelines it will be working to, its working method and intended outputs, and how it will work in consultation with people with criminal records and charities that work with, or employ, ex-offenders,

(i) a description of the criteria the Charity Commission will adopt in considering applications for waivers, and the weight it will attach to the views of the trustees of the charity or charities concerned,

(j) a description of how the waiver process will operate in relation to prospective candidates for senior management positions in charities, including the timescales for decisions and mechanisms to ensure that ex- offenders do not suffer indirect discrimination as a consequence of delays in assessing applications for waivers while a competitive recruitment process is underway,

(k) an assessment of the impact of the new disqualification framework on the resources provided by the Charity Commission to administer the waiver application process.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before parliament a report on the impact of the extension of the disqualification framework on people with criminal records who are trustees of, or employed by, charities, and on charities which work with, or employ, ex-offenders before the section came into force.

Amendment 13, in clause 10, page 10, line 7, after “person” insert “or persons”.

Government amendment 4.

Amendment 14, page 10, line 35, leave out

“(either generally or in relation to the charities or classes of charity specified or described in the order)”

and insert

“, as defined by the Commission in a specific document to be published after consultation and renewed”.

Amendment 15, page 11, line 33, after “conduct” insert “both relevant and serious”.

Government amendments 5 to 7.

[Anna Turley]

It is a pleasure to speak today on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition about this, my first Bill. The Committee process has been excellent, and I welcome this opportunity to revisit the Bill and talk again about some of the issues that were raised.

The main objective of the legislation is to provide a strong regulatory framework to support the charity sector and its trustees. In particular, it aims to strengthen the Charity Commission’s arm by giving it more powers to regulate charities. That is an important objective, which we support, but we are clear that the right safeguards must be in place. The Charity Commission is the guardian of public trust and confidence in charities. On the whole, it does an excellent job, particularly in the context of the assault on its budget over the past six years. It is important for the integrity of the charitable sector that the commission should have the tools to do its job properly, and for that reason we support many of the Bill’s provisions.

However, as with any regulator, it is vital to ensure that the commission’s powers are subject to appropriate safeguards. Unfortunately, some of new powers for the regulator introduced by the Bill lack such safeguards and therefore leave scope for the commission to overreach itself. That threatens the independence of charities and the integrity and reputation of the commission, and it could fundamentally change the relationship between the commission and the charity sector.

Our concerns are shared by the sector, its advisers and more widely—the Charity Law Association, for example, has said that the new powers in the Bill need to be balanced by appropriate and proportionate safeguards. It points out that the new powers will apply not only in rare cases of deliberate abuse but to all charities and their many hundreds of thousands of well-meaning volunteer trustees.

A group of sector umbrella bodies, including the Directory of Social Change, the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Charity Finance Group, have all expressed serious concerns about the lack of safeguards. The Joint Committee of the House of Lords and House of Commons that scrutinised an early draft of the Bill called for necessary safeguards to be included, and, of course, we pushed for those in Committee.

The Minister may point out, as he did in Committee, that the Charity Commission has a statutory obligation to act proportionately. We acknowledge that, but experience has shown that, sadly, that is not enough. In a recent High Court case involving the commission and the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, the Lord Chief Justice referred to “ludicrous time limits” imposed by the commission in a regulatory situation; he said he could understand why it was felt that the Charity Commission had behaved in an extremely high-handed manner in that case.

The commission should, of course, have the power to do its job, but sensible limits should be imposed on how it exercises its powers. Our amendment would redress the balance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anna Turley and John Bercow

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

I refer to my answer to question 3.

[Mr Speaker]

It is in our minds.

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the Minister’s response. My constituency of Redcar has obviously just experienced a huge and extreme tragedy with the loss of our steelworks. The challenge now for our further education campuses is to use the £3 million that the Government have provided to ensure that people get back into work. However, the campus at Redcar college has been under threat, and in the light of the review, there is some concern that we may not be able to retain that campus. I want to impress on the Government how extremely important that is for the economic and social regeneration of our area.

Redcar Steelworks

Debate between Anna Turley and John Bercow

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is overseeing the death of 170 years of steelmaking on Teesside. It does not have to be the end—the site is still viable. You’ve thrown the towel in. I have literally just got off the phone to people on the site. German companies are willing to buy foundry coke that we can produce in the coke ovens. That sells at £520 a tonne, compared to £190 for ordinary coke. The site is viable. We have companies willing to invest. We have companies willing to come in and supply the coke ovens to keep the plant running and to do the mothballing. You are not giving us time. You are just throwing the towel in. The official receiver has not done proper diligence. We can find buyers, we just need three months. Please, keep the plant alive. You hide behind the excuse that it is the Thai banks, the Swiss banks, the American banks, the British banks—this is British industry.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have the point. Can people please remember that I haven’t done anything in this matter?

UK Steel Industry

Debate between Anna Turley and John Bercow

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the unprecedented gravity of the challenges currently facing the UK steel industry; and calls on the Government to hold a top-level summit with the key players from the steel industry to seek meaningful and urgent solutions to the crisis.

Forgive me, Mr Speaker, but I am new to this place. Should I continue?

[Mr Speaker]

The House is expectant. If the hon. Lady, beyond the formal moving, wishes to make a speech, I know that the House will be agog with attention. The Minister is there to hear her, and others. Please, proceed with your speech.

[Anna Turley]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing Back Benchers time for this crucial debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting me the opportunity to raise this issue on the Floor of the House. This is an issue of huge significance not only to my constituents, but to the economic security of the United Kingdom and its global position in manufacturing. I thank the Minister for attending the debate. I look forward to building on the constructive conversations that we have had recently on this issue.

I am grateful to the many hon. Members who supported me in securing this debate, including the hon. Members for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) and for Corby (Tom Pursglove), my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), and many others who I look forward to hearing from today. We are bringing the voice of our constituents around the country into this Chamber and I hope that the Government will hear their pleas.

I am grateful to my union, Community, which represents its members and the industry as a whole with great dedication and commitment, as do our colleagues from the GMB and Unite. I pay particular tribute to the Community union’s general secretary, Roy Rickhuss, and the senior trade union representative at the Redcar steelworks, Paul Warren, who are here with us today.

Most of all, I am grateful to the generations of workers who have kept steelmaking alive on Teesside for over a century—those who dug the iron ore and forged the steel that built Canary Wharf, the Sydney harbour bridge, Wembley stadium and the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Centre—and to those proud men and women of Teesside who stand ready to fight again for its future.

UK steel is at breaking point. This is a crisis for one of the most important foundation industries in the British economy. It employs 30,000 people across the country in highly skilled jobs, often in industrial heartlands with high unemployment. The UK steel industry supports the automotive, construction and aerospace sectors, as well as a raft of supply chains, and it is vital that there is a future for steelmaking at the heart of industry in this country.

The industry is in crisis because the price of steel has collapsed from £318 per tonne to £191 per tonne. Chinese imports are flooding the market. Between 2011 and 2015, the proportion of Chinese steel entering the market has quadrupled. The strength of the pound is increasing prices by 10% and crippling exports. I accept that there is little the Government can do about those global drivers, but that should never diminish their responsibility to do what they can.