British Steel
Blair McDougall Excerpts(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
During the passage of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026, the Government promised to provide regular updates to Parliament on British Steel. In line with the Act’s provisions, British Steel entered public ownership on 16 July 2026. This statement provides an update on the financial and operational performance of British Steel under public ownership and the company’s governance and strategic direction.
Governance and strategic direction
In July 2026, Ministers appointed a new board of directors. This was followed by the appointment of Alan Lovell as chair in September. Two further board members are shareholder non-executive directors representing Government, one from the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade and one from UK Government Investments.
Mr Lovell and the board’s immediate priorities include overseeing the stabilisation of British Steel, maintaining a strong focus on health and safety, and developing proposals for a commercially and environmentally sustainable future for the business. As set out in the steel strategy, securing the long-term future of Britain’s steel capability and capacity will require both public and private investment.
The chair, in consultation with the Department, is also looking to strengthen the board and management team to ensure it has the capacity and capability to address the objectives. The board is currently recruiting a non-executive director to chair its audit, risk and assurance committee. Further appointments are expected, and the Government will monitor progress closely.
Governance arrangements, including how the relationship between Government and British Steel will work in practice, will be set out in the British Steel framework document, in line with standard practice for Government-owned companies. The framework document will be published shortly.
Financial and operational performance
British Steel has continued to trade and operate across its sites, maintaining steel production and supplies to customers. Since April 2025, the Government have provided £751 million in working capital support for British Steel. This funding has supported the continued operation of the business, including expenditure on raw materials and salaries.
The guarantees the Secretary of State gave to Npower Commercial Gas Ltd and SEFE Energy Ltd, to keep British Steel’s energy supplies in place while the company was under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025, are no longer needed now the company is in public ownership. The Department gave formal notice to both suppliers on 27 August 2026, and both guarantees ended on 10 September 2026, without being utilised.
British Steel has enhanced governance and accountability for its safety improvement plan, with implementation ongoing for all 34 initiatives scheduled for year 1. The Government and board will continue to press for sustained improvements and ensure that health and safety remains at the heart of the company’s operational and transformation plans.
The Government welcome the scrutiny provided by the Public Accounts Committee and are carefully considering their recommendations as part of ongoing work to ensure appropriate governance, transparency and value for money at British Steel.
[HCWS445]
Draft Renewables Obligation and Electricity Capacity (Amendment) (British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme Excluded Electricity) Regulations 2026
Blair McDougall Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Renewables Obligation and Electricity Capacity (Amendment) (British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme Excluded Electricity) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 7 September 2026. I acknowledge the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which provided helpful scrutiny of the regulations and did not draw them to the special attention of the House. I also acknowledge that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reported on the regulations and did not draw them to the special attention of the House.
These regulations deliver the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which is a flagship commitment of the modern industrial strategy. BICS is a central part of our drive to engineer the reindustrialisation of the UK. Reindustrialisation means building on the strengths of every part of our country, creating good jobs and connecting communities to the industries and opportunities of the future.
BICS will address the persistent competitiveness challenges facing British manufacturers by reducing electricity costs for eligible businesses. It will drive investment and economic growth in strategically important sectors across Great Britain. BICS will support frontier manufacturing industries within the IS-8 sectors and the foundational manufacturing industries that provide key inputs to their supply chains. This includes eligible businesses in automotive, aerospace, clean energy, life sciences, chemicals and steel, and many more.
The Government are committed to maintaining a competitive and resilient industrial base, but persistently high energy prices, especially electricity prices, have increasingly undermined investment, productivity and employment, particularly in manufacturing. For too long, British industries have faced some of the highest industrial electricity prices in Europe due to a combination of structural factors and policy costs. There is a need to address the immediate cost pressures that are facing the British manufacturing industry and stifling growth, which is precisely why BICS has been introduced.
BICS will exempt eligible manufacturing businesses from paying the indirect costs of the renewables obligation and feed-in tariffs from April 2027 and capacity market costs from October 2027. These costs are levied on electricity suppliers, which pass them on to domestic and non-domestic consumers through their electricity bills. BICS is expected to cut electricity costs by up to 25%, or £40 per megawatt-hour, and over 10,000 manufacturing businesses will be eligible.
The scheme is designed to support manufacturing businesses in high-growth and strategic sectors to be more internationally competitive, and to drive investment and economic growth across all regions of Great Britain. It will spread the benefits of growth across the country, supporting businesses rooted in communities across our regions, with the vast majority being small and medium-sized businesses.
The regulations are an important part of delivering that objective. They implement the renewables obligation and capacity market exemptions, and they enable the renewables obligation level for the 2027-28 obligation period to be revised in the light of BICS. They also provide for the BICS eligibility criteria and how the level of discount will be calculated. An instrument to exempt eligible businesses from the indirect costs of the feed-in tariff will also be made.
We recognise the tremendous challenges that British manufacturers are facing, and we have heard the call to go further. That is why eligible businesses will also receive an additional payment in 2027 related to the amount they would have received had the scheme gone live this year.
BICS will support British manufacturing businesses to thrive and become more competitive on the international market. It will allow them the freedom to invest further in their business and help drive economic growth across Great Britain. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Blair McDougall
I thank Members for taking part in this debate. I am grateful for the constructive tone, particularly from the Opposition. As the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth said, we sat around the table with some superb advanced manufacturers from the automotive sector in his constituency. They deserve not just our praise but our action, which is exactly what we are attempting to achieve with these regulations.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
It has just occurred to me that the cut-off date is 1 December. If firms miss that, will they have to wait a whole year to reapply, or is there some sort of mechanism to support them?
Blair McDougall
The hon. Gentleman is getting slightly ahead of what I was about to say, which is that we are racing to make sure that as many companies as possible make that deadline. Of course, we will keep things under review as we want the maximum number of companies to be eligible.
The scheme has been described as complex, and certainly its design is complex. Although it is complex for my civil service team, we are hopeful that, through the work we have done with the online eligibility checker, it will not be complex for businesses as they apply. I urge Members across the House to reach out to their local manufacturers to make sure they apply for this support.
There is an understandable consensus urging us to go further, which is completely fair. Energy prices are one of the country’s key competitive disadvantages. When BICS was first announced, we envisaged that around 6,000 businesses would be eligible, and that has now been extended to 10,000 businesses. With its design, we have already tried to go further. Both the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero have made it clear that they have wider ambitions.
It is perhaps a little late—I do not know whether the Budget has been sent to the printers—but I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth that both my Departments will continue to make that case to the Treasury, but I would say that drawing a greater amount on the Exchequer obviously has an opportunity cost for other industrial support we can give. We have to be careful to strike a balance.
Obviously, this is not the only intervention to assist with energy costs. We have the supercharger for energy-intensive industries, and the ceramics fund is specifically aimed at helping that sector, which is under stress with energy prices, to decarbonise, to electrify and to innovate. Ultimately, the long-term future for competitive energy prices in this country, after the experience of two fossil fuel shocks in five years, is to move towards cleaner, cheaper, more reliable power that we control.
I am grateful to Members for their contributions to this debate and for their support for these regulations. BICS is intended to challenge the long-term competitiveness disadvantages, and it will benefit over 10,000 manufacturing businesses in high-growth and strategic sectors across the country. We will review the scheme in 2030 to assess its continued effectiveness in supporting the competitiveness of manufacturing businesses. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Enhanced Free Trade Agreement: Turkey
Blair McDougall Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, Lord Sarwar, has today made the following statement.
The sixth round of negotiations on an enhanced free trade agreement with Turkey took place in London between 28 September and 2 October 2026.
International trade is central to the Government’s ambition to deliver good growth in every part of the UK. The UK and Turkey already enjoy a strong trading relationship, with total trade reaching £28.3 billion in 2025, an increase of 3.9% on the previous year. By building on this foundation, we can help unlock new opportunities for businesses, workers and consumers across the UK.
Negotiations were constructive, with positive progress being made in a number of areas:
Trade in services
Sessions were held across a range of important areas, including digital trade and investment. UK negotiators continued to pursue ambitious outcomes across these areas and beyond, seeking an FTA that supports the UK’s world-leading services suppliers. Text-based discussions on digital trade, domestic regulation and investment took place. We look forward to continuing discussions across trade in services over the coming months.
Trade in goods
Negotiations covered a range of market access and regulatory issues, including goods market access and sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Discussions focused on reviewing respective proposals, recognising regulatory equivalence and reviewing audit requirements, while maintaining and upholding the UK’s high standards. Both sides discussed their first tariff offers, alongside their respective market access interests and sensitivities. These sessions were productive, with both sides seeking an ambitious outcome that supports businesses and drives progress forward.
Additional areas
Further productive discussions took place across a number of chapters, including intellectual property, state-owned enterprises, environment, core text, Government procurement and trade remedies.
The UK will only ever sign a trade deal which aligns with the UK’s national interests, upholding our high standards across a range of sectors.
Both sides will work constructively towards the seventh round of negotiations in the coming months. Ministers will continue to update Parliament on progress as discussions with Turkey advance.
[HCWS403]
Mineworkers’ Pension Schemes: Nottinghamshire
Blair McDougall Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this debate, for his leadership on behalf of miners and also for taking the time to recognise and remember today’s anniversary. The poet Ron Cook described Aberfan as the day
“when the world stood still and the mountain moved”.
Aberfan was one of those tragedies that so overwhelming in its injustice that it is painful to think about, but that is precisely why it is essential to remember.
My hon. Friend’s speech also brought to mind a story I read of the Victoria colliery disaster in my own constituency, where 63 men and boys were killed. The bodies were laid out in the churchyard of St John’s church in Barrhead, where the local women faced the unimaginable horror of having to identify the remains not just of a husband but of a son. I will come to what miners are owed in a moment, but it is right that we recognise at the start of this debate that those debts cannot be repaid by anyone. My hon. Friend says that this is not about money, but as we discuss money and pension schemes and their distribution, we remember that, my God, the miners earned every penny of it.
As my hon. Friend will know well, the British Coal staff superannuation scheme dates back to 1946 and the mineworkers’ pension scheme to 1952. When the British Coal Board was privatised in 1994, the schemes were closed to new entrants and the remaining employees were given the right to participate in successor schemes. The Government of the day gave the mineworkers a guarantee: the value of the fund would not decrease—this would ensure that pensions would continue to be paid—and the Government would take half of any surplus from the investment. The other half could be used to improve benefits through bonus pensions. For the miners’ scheme, this surplus sharing arrangement has continued, although this Government have not taken any money from the scheme since we came to power in 2024. For the British Coal staff scheme, the surplus sharing arrangement was ended in 2015, and future benefits were fixed, ensuring that pensions could be paid. The aim is to return the reserve to Government in 2033.
Since the 2015 changes, the scheme’s investments have performed well, building up a reserve of £2.3 billion. I join hon. Members in paying tribute to the campaigners who, all the way through this, have spoken up for miners, ensuring that they get what they deserve. Today, there remain almost 150,000 members of the two schemes, the vast majority of whom are receiving their pension. Five thousand of them are in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and 37,000 are across the east midlands. The average age of members across the two schemes is 76, as hon. Members have said. The group includes 30,000 widows, with an average age of 84.
We owe former mining communities a debt of gratitude for their contribution to national prosperity, and we must acknowledge and recognise the hard work and sacrifice of coalminers, who powered this country for decades.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I must declare an interest: I am a member of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and a former miner—probably the only one in the Commons at this moment in time. We must recognise that the Labour party had in its manifesto in 2017, 2019 and 2024 that it would seek justice for the mineworkers in the pension scheme. It is only when a Government are elected that they are allowed to deliver on their manifesto, and we actually did that. We made a huge difference only a few months ago. There is a lot more to do, and I ask the Minister what other people have asked: can he give assurances to the members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and the families and widows, that he will do everything in his power to ensure that in the Budget next week, miners in our coalfields are given full justice?
Blair McDougall
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on behalf of miners throughout his life. I will come to the specifics of the scheme and his ask in a moment, but he is absolutely right that issues like this are exactly why all of us came into politics in the first place; we came into politics to deliver for individuals like these.
Previous Governments have failed to ensure that former British Coal employees got the amount of pension they deserved. In 2021, the Select Committee looking at the mineworkers’ pension scheme recommended that the Government take no further funds from the scheme, transfer the reserve to scheme members and review the surplus sharing arrangements. That Conservative Government declined to accept those recommendations, but miners, as my hon. Friend said, deserve those historical wrongs to be righted. That is why the Government are implementing those recommendations, for both schemes.
We continue to guarantee both schemes, ensuring that scheme members’ pensions will always be paid. As has been said, in 2024, one of the first decisions we made was to transfer the £1.5 billion investment reserve in the miners’ scheme for use as bonus pensions. The hard work of colleagues on the Labour Benches increased those incomes by 32%—an average of £29 per week.
We have also transferred the £2.3 billion equivalent in the British coal staff scheme. That led to a 41% increase in pension incomes last December, backdated to November 2024. On average, that meant an extra £100 per week in scheme members’ pockets and, as has been said, that went into local economies. That is direct support for the pensioners and local communities who powered this country for decades.
However, as all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have said, there is more to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield raises important questions. We are in that terrible pre-Budget period when lots of Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and ask for patience. I have to do the same, but I recognise that we are dealing with people who are incredibly advanced in years and cannot afford to wait indefinitely.
We have been discussing proposals for future arrangements for the scheme with the trustees, including the potential for future surpluses to be used to enhance benefits, and we have been making good progress. The Government will make an announcement once that agreement has been formally reached, and we are seeking to do that as swiftly as possible, while managing wider funding risks. The Government and trustees have had very constructive discussions. I hope to be in a position to announce a way forward shortly, and I will continue to work with hon. Members towards that end.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Blair McDougall Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
The Government are determined to tackle the scourge of late payments, which causes the closure of 14,000 businesses and costs the UK economy almost £11 billion a year. The Commercial Payments Bill currently progressing through Parliament will give the UK the strongest laws in the G7 and represents the most significant reform of payment practices in over 25 years. The Bill will ensure that small businesses spend more time on growing, investing and creating jobs and less time on chasing late payments.
Cat Eccles
Late payment destroys thousands of viable small firms each year, and poor practices have seen large firms using small suppliers as a free overdraft. In my constituency, the impact is felt by manufacturers and fabricators, with local metalwork and transport supply sectors facing the longest payment delays in the UK. How is the Minister ensuring that there is a change in payment culture and lifting that burden from small businesses?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I know from personal experience how frustrating it is to have large firms use small firms as a source of free finance. The Commercial Payments Bill will clamp down on late payments by introducing maximum payment terms, providing stronger rights to interest and strengthening the powers of the Small Business Commissioner. She is right about the need for a culture change. The message from Government is that this legislation and this change is coming, and large companies should get their payment practices in order right now.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Rising business rates, wages going up, energy prices rising, national insurance contributions—all those things have an impact on small businesses. My small businesses talk to me about the very issue that the hon. Lady referred to: those who do not pay on time. What can be done to help firms who are not getting the money from the suppliers? Is there somewhere that they can refer to for help?
Blair McDougall
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue. I know it is a huge problem in Northern Ireland, as it is in the rest of the UK. One of the great problems with the current system is that a small business has to be aggressive towards its own customers to chase those late payments. The Commercial Payments Bill will turn that power relationship on its head, and people will expect to be paid on time. If they are not, there will be mandatory interest on that.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
The industrial strategy sets out the Government’s long-term approach to boosting investment, productivity and growth, building on the UK’s industrial strengths, including advanced manufacturing. Through the complementary advanced manufacturing sector plan, backed by £4.3 billion of Government funding, we are helping manufacturers to grow and thrive.
Richard Quigley
May I say how shocked I am that the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) suggested that your appearance needed any augmentation, Madam Deputy Speaker? On the Isle of Wight, we are incredibly proud of our advanced manufacturing sector and, for an area of its size, the island has one of the biggest concentrations of advanced manufacturing and high-tech engineering jobs in the country. Employers on my side of the island are racing to employ under 25s. We always want to do more, so will the Minister set out how the Government’s drive to buy British, alongside their renewed commitment to strengthening our defence capabilities, will create new opportunities for island manufacturers to secure contracts, invest in growth and create the next generation of skilled jobs on the Isle of Wight?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the huge opportunities for manufacturers on the Isle of Wight. We are determined to use procurement strategically, as other nations do, to back British industry. It is particularly important with shipbuilding. We are expanding the role of the National Shipbuilding Office to oversee that. The renewed investment in defence and shipbuilding will create opportunities across the maritime supply chain, including for the Wight Shipyard Co. and other island manufacturers.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
Place is central to the industrial strategy. We have been working with Plymouth and the south-west peninsula to support the development of distinctive nationally significant clusters. I visited Plymouth and Cornwall earlier this year to meet the freeport, understand the opportunities around marine autonomy and see for myself Cornwall’s incredible critical mineral potential.
Noah Law
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, in Cornwall we have a resurgent minerals industry, which can make our country and our communities wealthy once again, but we can only do that if we process what we dig out of the ground. Having strong supply chains is therefore imperative from a national security and a resilience perspective. What steps is the Minister taking, together with No. 10 North, the Treasury and other Departments, to ensure that the key investment case for our area—including the missing midstream, which is battery active material production—will prevent us from having to ship that wealth abroad and will ensure that we create Cornish jobs back home?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend and the other Cornish Labour MPs are incredible advocates for critical minerals and their potential in the UK. Projects in that part of the world are essential to our ambitions. We are supporting lithium projects in Cornwall, including through an offer in principle of £9.8 million through DRIVE35 for Geothermal Engineering Ltd, as well as a £31 million equity investment in Cornish lithium through the National Wealth Fund. We will continue to work to ensure that we keep more of that value in the UK.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I, too, was in Scunthorpe recently meeting British Steel management and the unions. The positive news we can give them is that Alan Lovell is now in place as chair, and he is working hard to stabilise operations, improve health and safety, and develop the long-term plan that the hon. Gentleman has worked so hard on with to achieve.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Over the past year, I have also had countless constituents contact me about the adequacy of postal delivery services across Bexleyheath and Crayford. Along with colleagues, I met the chief executive of Ofcom yesterday to look at what more it can do, but will the Minister outline what assessment has been made of the adequacy of services across Bexleyheath and Crayford and set out what more the Government can do to help my constituents?
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
When I visited Alpro and Navara Oat Milling over the summer, I heard how rising energy costs are putting pressure on food manufacturers, with knock-on effects for their supply chain and, ultimately, food inflation. Given the importance of these energy-intensive industries to our economy, how is the Department helping British manufacturers remain competitive, attract investment and mitigate rising food production costs?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is a great champion for that sector. The British industrial competitiveness scheme is now open. In addition, we will be reviewing the British industry supercharger later in the year and we will be working closely with the food manufacturing sector as we do that.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
As well as breaking the UK’s legally binding climate commitments and contributing to a global climate disaster, the approval of Rosebank will result in the UK continuing to facilitate illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine and being complicit in breaches of international law. Israeli energy company Delek Group, which owns Ithaca Energy, has been named in the United Nations list of businesses whose activities in the west bank have raised particular human rights concerns, and it has received over £200 million in revenue from the Rosebank field. Given that Norway’s sovereign wealth fund and largest pension fund have already divested from Delek, will the Secretary of State confirm that Delek Group Ltd will be one of the companies sanctioned for its role in illegal settlement expansion?
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s support for British industry, including through the British industrial competitiveness scheme. However, the fact that the oil refinery sector is not included in that scheme threatens thousands of jobs and our national energy security. Will the Secretary of State consider expanding the scope of the scheme and reviewing its broader eligibility requirements?
Blair McDougall
I thank my hon. Friend for his consistent support for the refining industry. I have been meeting with the industry this week to discuss issues such as the energy issues that he mentions. We recognise that the sector faces real challenges. The work to consider the impacts and the feasibility of bringing refined products, for example, into the scope of the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism is ongoing, and we will certainly continue to engage with him on energy costs and other issues.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I have been contacted by Petruth Paddocks, a family-run camping business on the outskirts of Cheddar, which welcomes more than 20,000 visitors a year and supports more than 50 jobs. Its business rates liability this year has increased by almost 2,700%, from £1,070 per annum to £28,820 per annum, with no meaningful warning and no chance to plan for this catastrophic hike. Will a Minister or the Secretary of State meet me to discuss what can be done in rural Somerset, where so many businesses depend on hospitality and tourism? They really cannot take this kind of kicking.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It will surprise no one in this House to hear that I believe growth in every postcode should start in our towns. Will the Minister tell me what we are doing to support brilliant businesses such as Hill Helicopters in my constituency to grow, thrive and export?
Blair McDougall
I spent a fantastic day with the aerospace industry last week. Over and over again, they spoke so enthusiastically about the Aerospace Technology Institute and the investment that we are putting into the sector. I pay tribute to the company that my hon. Friend mentions in her constituency. Advanced manufacturing of all sorts is one of the things that we are really great at in this country, which is why we are backing it with the industrial strategy.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Last month, McLaren announced a £500 million investment, which will create 1,000 jobs. That is particularly beneficial in my constituency, and I know that the Secretary of State visited the constituency to share in that good news. What steps are he and the Government taking to ensure that McLaren and other businesses can expand in that way?
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
With Syngenta ending its Grangemouth operations despite the Government’s substantial offer to intervene, we have a narrow window to avoid this incredibly well-positioned site lying vacant. What interventions are the Government prepared to make to seriously secure new industry and new jobs for this site and, more broadly, the Grangemouth industrial complex this side of 2030?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is a constant advocate for the Grangemouth site. Last night, I and my officials met representatives of the National Wealth Fund and the Office for Investment to push forward on this. We have a taskforce meeting on Monday at which, among other things, we will be pushing for faster action to prepare the groundwork for investment, so that we can deploy the £200 million from the National Wealth Fund that we have set aside.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Truro lost its post office last week as well, without a temporary alternative. Will the Minister consider consulting with the Post Office on alternatives when this happens in main cities and looking again at the franchise model, which seems to leave post office branches very vulnerable?
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Plans to revive Cornish tin and tungsten mining are well advanced with the support of the National Wealth Fund. However, if tin or tungsten were to be brought to the surface today, it would have to be shipped to the other side of the world for refining and processing, with only a fraction coming back to the UK at seriously increased cost. When Cornish MPs meet the Minister next week, can we discuss plans from Government to invest in domestic refinement of tin and tungsten?
Blair McDougall
We will absolutely discuss that. As my hon. Friend knows—because he talks to me about this issue at every available opportunity—we are determined to make sure that more of the value of that entire process remains in the UK, which is why we are putting £50 million on the table for exactly that sort of development work.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Royal Mail sorting offices in my patch are in absolute chaos—they are in meltdown—and I am really concerned that someone will end up in a tragic situation because of the lack of service. I have met Royal Mail on numerous occasions and there has been no change whatsoever—in fact, the service is getting worse. What can the Minister do to remedy the situation before somebody needs to be held accountable for a very serious situation?
The Modification of the Law (British Steel Limited Property Transfer) Regulations 2026
Blair McDougall Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Modification of the Law (British Steel Limited Property Transfer) Regulations 2026.
The regulations were laid before the House on 16 July 2026 under the affirmative procedure. Steel is foundational to our economy and national resilience, and to the critical infrastructure on which communities and businesses across the country rely. The House will be well aware that British Steel is one of the UK’s largest steel producers. The steel that it forges is used by our clean energy sector, in construction, in our bridges and on our railways. In other words, Britain needs British Steel.
The decision to bring British Steel into public ownership was not taken lightly. The Secretary of State at the time of the transfer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), considered the public interest test carefully prior to making a decision, before deeming it necessary to nationalise British Steel based on the relevant factors and the likely costs. Given the financial challenges that the company is facing and has faced for some time, the Government’s assessment was that without taking British Steel into public ownership, there was a significant risk that it would fail and that this essential steelmaking capability would be lost.
We could not sit by and do nothing—the company’s collapse would have led to serious and difficult-to-reverse consequences for steelmaking capacity, supply chain resilience, workers and the communities that have supported the business for generations—so the British Steel Limited Property Transfer Regulations 2026 transferred certain property, rights and liabilities of British Steel to a new publicly owned company, wholly owned by the Secretary of State immediately on 16 July.
The regulations before the Committee are a necessary, targeted and technical part of the transfer. They were made to ensure the effectiveness of the transfer and the operations of the new public company. This statutory instrument is needed to protect the continuity of operations and give legal certainty to employees, customers, suppliers and other parties affected by the transfer.
The statutory instrument addresses five technical areas of the law that require modification to ensure the effectiveness of the transfer of British Steel, reflecting the fairly unique nature of that transfer—a legislative nationalisation at pace—which was not envisaged when the relevant laws were first drafted. First, the instrument puts beyond doubt that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006—known as TUPE—apply with regard to employees moving from the old company to the new company. This provides British Steel employees with certainty about the continuity of their jobs and terms and conditions after the transfer.
Secondly, due to the unusual situation and pace of the legislative transfer of British Steel’s business, the instrument disapplied the TUPE requirement for the current employer to inform and, where appropriate, consult elected or trade union employee representatives, in the context of this specific transfer only.
Thirdly, the instrument provides that British Steel does not count as a “public authority” subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Procurement Act 2023, reflecting the fact that it operates and competes in the private sector rather than as a traditional public body.
Fourthly, the instrument rules out the possibility that Ministers and civil servants count as “shadow directors” of the company, and fifthly, it disapplied rules around the reuse of a company name by a new company when the original company goes into insolvent liquidation.
Taken together, the modifications have enabled, and will continue to enable, the new publicly owned company to function properly while the Government stabilise the business and consider its long-term future. Due to the need for the transfer to come into effect immediately, it was necessary to make this instrument simultaneously with the transfer regulations, and it came into force immediately on 16 July as a made affirmative instrument. The House will rightly expect scrutiny of the decision to make the law modifications in the regulations, and I welcome that today. We have brought the instrument before the Committee so that Members can consider and approve the legal modifications needed to give full and effective operation to the transfer.
In summary, the instrument is limited in its scope of modifications, restricted as they are to British Steel’s specific case, and necessary to make the nationalisation effective. It provides legal certainty, supports employee protections and helps to secure the continuity of British Steel following its transfer into public ownership. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Blair McDougall
I appreciate the constructive tone of the Opposition spokesperson’s comments. Let me get into the specifics he raised. The steel strategy that we set out takes specific action with regard to the profitability challenge that he rightly mentioned. It includes targeted measures on global overcapacity, energy prices, issues around procurement and the availability of scrap.
On energy prices, I direct the hon. Gentleman to the changes we have made with the supercharger scheme. For the steel industry more widely, applications have opened in the last few days for the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will have a significant impact for many manufacturers.
The changes in the regulations in respect of the Procurement Act 2023 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are a recognition that yes, British Steel is ultimately owned by the taxpayer, but it has to operate as a commercial company. We do not want it to have disadvantages or advantages compared with other operators in the field.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have a responsibility to make sure that the company is run as efficiently and effectively as possible. That is exactly the work we are currently doing, including through the appointment of the new chair, Alan Lovell, who will work with UK Government Investments and the DBIST representative on the company board.
On SSUK and, indeed, the whole ecosystem, the hon. Gentleman is exactly right to point out that we need to take an entire-steel-sector view of the future of British Steel. One of the unique things about our steel ecosystem is that there is not a great deal of like-for-like competition, and we do need companies to work together. That will be a key part of the work to produce the plan for the company’s future.
We fully recognise the significance of the decision to bring British Steel into public ownership. It was a serious step taken in exceptional circumstances, and only after careful consideration of the public interest. The regulations do not revisit the whole question of nationalisation, and they certainly do not intend to take us back to the 1970s—although I would argue that pop music was better in that decade. Their purpose is narrower, but it is important to ensure that British Steel’s specified property, rights and liabilities operate effectively in law, and that the necessary legal clarity and certainty is in place following the transfer. That certainty matters. It matters for employees, whose rights and protections must be clear; for customers and suppliers, who need confidence that the business can continue to operate; and for the wider economy, which relies so much on steel.
I reassure the Committee that the Government understand the need for proper scrutiny. The regulations were made using powers passed by Parliament in the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 and are subject to approval by both Houses. This debate has been an important part of the process. The statutory instrument is technical, targeted and proportionate. It supports the effective operation of the transfer, protects continuity and gives confidence to those affected by the transition into public ownership. For those reasons, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Speciality Steel UK
Blair McDougall Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I wish to update the House on the position regarding Speciality Steel UK.
SSUK entered liquidation in August 2025, with the independent, court-appointed official receiver managing the liquidation process. Throughout this period, the Government have provided funding to enable the official receiver to carry out his statutory duties, including maintaining site safety, supporting employees and conducting a sales process for the business and its assets.
For more than 12 months, the Government have worked hard to facilitate a private-sector solution, funding the official receiver’s process while interested parties engaged in the sale process.
As part of that process, the official receiver engaged with a number of interested parties seeking to acquire the business and its assets. The final bidder taken forward by the official receiver subsequently sought Government support associated with its proposed acquisition of SSUK. Following extensive engagement with the bidder and its advisers, and detailed consideration of that request, the Government have concluded that they cannot provide support on the terms proposed.
This decision has not been taken lightly. The Government carefully examined the proposal and explored whether an arrangement could be reached that appropriately protected public money while providing a sustainable basis for the future of the business. Despite extensive engagement, material concerns remained regarding the evidence supporting the proposed financing package and the protections available to taxpayers.
The Government’s decision relates specifically to the proposal for Government support that was presented. It should not be interpreted as a broader judgement on the bidder or its wider business activities.
SSUK occupies a unique place in the UK steel ecosystem. Its specialist capabilities have potential applications in advanced manufacturing sectors, including aerospace and defence, while its sites are major employers in communities facing significant economic challenges.
The Government also recognise the significance of the SSUK sites to the employees, local economy and communities it supports. Given the size and complexity of these sites, an official receiver-led closure process could materially reduce future options and create significant uncertainty for workers, communities and local stakeholders.
The communities surrounding SSUK have already suffered a prolonged period of uncertainty. The Government cannot accept the prospect of a prolonged process that will restrict HMG’s aim to create the growth opportunities this area deserves, especially while viable future options remain available for consideration. We are determined to ensure that decisions about the future of SSUK are taken in a way that protects local communities, preserves opportunity and supports economic growth.
The Government will therefore engage with the official receiver’s sale process and develop a proposal for the public acquisition of SSUK. This approach will help preserve control of the sites and maintain strategic optionality while decisions are taken on their longer-term future.
Public acquisition is not an endpoint and does not pre-judge the outcome of this work. It will create the space for a detailed assessment of a sustainable future for SSUK as a speciality steelmaker, regeneration of the sites, or a combination of the two.
The Government will engage closely with local communities, elected representatives, the mayor and relevant experts to determine the most appropriate future for the business and its sites.
All future decisions and spending commitments will be subject to detailed due diligence and funded from existing Government budgets.
The Government will continue to keep the House informed of significant developments.
[HCWS341]
Jaguar Land Rover: Redundancies
Blair McDougall Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government’s support for Jaguar Land Rover and our wider automotive sector. I offer my apologies on behalf of the Secretary of State, who is on his way to France to talk to our trading partners there.
As the House will be aware, Jaguar Land Rover recently announced approximately 4,000 redundancies as part of a £1.7 billion cost saving effort, and the company now intends to consult on the job losses that are planned over the next two years. Although Jaguar Land Rover has stated that these losses will not impact production staff, the news will undoubtedly come as a terrible shock to all of the company’s employees.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have been in regular contact with the company and the relevant unions since the Government became aware. We have made it clear that we want to see the company reducing the impact on workers through the consultation period and that all employees deserve maximum clarity on the extent and focus of its plans for non-production workers, which the Business Secretary and I encouraged the company to do earlier today in a meeting with the company and the Unite general secretary.
We recognise, too, the impact that those redundancies will have on local skills. There is a deep advanced manufacturing skills base in the west midlands, and this Government are working together with employers and the combined authority to retain that skills base within the regional economy, including by backing Mayor Richard Parker’s £500,000 support package for JLR workers taking voluntary redundancy. The Department for Work and Pensions also stands ready to support anyone affected through its rapid response service, which provides support and advice to employers and employees facing redundancy, including help with finding new work and training.
Hon. Members will know that, over recent years, Jaguar Land Rover has been forced to confront a series of challenges, many of which have been shared by vehicle producers all over the world, which I will say more about shortly. One of the unique challenges the company faced last year, however, was a significant cyber-attack that temporarily halted production for several weeks. However, with help and support from this Government, including a £1.5 billion loan guarantee, it resumed operations and reopened assembly lines. Make no mistake: when British industry is attacked, we will step in to defend it, and defend it strongly, in our national interest.
In this case, however, Jaguar Land Rover has cited global market conditions as one of the principal reasons for job reductions. Indeed, similar announcements from manufacturers such as Volkswagen and BMW underscore the challenging global headwinds that nearly all automotive manufacturers are facing right now: tariffs, high energy costs, the transition to electric vehicles, and stiff competition from overseas producers.
We recognise those challenges, and are using our modern industrial strategy to help our car industry to rise to them. Through our DRIVE35 programme—driving research and investment in vehicle electrification—we are ploughing more than £4 billion into our automotive sector to support the electrification of vehicle plants alongside batteries, electric motors, hydrogen fuel cells and power electronics. It is the biggest investment in our car industry of the post-war era. Jaguar Land Rover has benefited from that funding, with £40 million of public and private investment going into advanced software-defined vehicles, supply chain resilience and lightweighting. Alongside that funding for innovation and next-generation technologies, hon. Members will know that the Government have made a considerable grant investment into Agratas’s gigafactory in Somerset, which is strengthening not only the UK’s battery production capability but the automotive industry and companies like Jaguar Land Rover, which will benefit from a secure domestic supply.
When it comes to energy costs, our British industrial competitiveness scheme will save more than 10,000 manufacturers up to 25% of their electricity bills. This will almost certainly include some of the biggest companies in the automotive sector, including Jaguar Land Rover. The successful applicants for that scheme will be announced soon.
On global market conditions and tariffs, this Government have acted decisively to secure trade agreements that support our nation’s car manufacturers. Our economic prosperity deal, for example, includes a preferential rate of 10% on the first 100,000 UK-made cars exported to the USA each year. The US is obviously a major export market for Jaguar Land Rover—the biggest, in fact—as it is for so many other high-value manufacturers in the UK, which is why we worked so hard to secure that deal. We remain the only country in the world subject to a 10% tariff for automotive exports, with other nations facing a much higher rate.
We have placed just as much importance on vehicle exports in the other trade deals we have negotiated since taking office, including the landmark agreement we secured with India—an agreement that reduces tariffs on British-made vehicles from roughly 110% to 10%. This is a significant win for Jaguar Land Rover and other manufacturers, as India is already a huge market, with consumers set to grow by millions in the coming decades as the country’s economy fast expands.
I should also touch on the zero emission vehicle mandate, which provides a clear pathway to phase out new petrol and diesel cars and vans. We always said we would keep it under review. We always said that we needed a pragmatic and balanced approach. That is the right thing to do, because discouraging the production of electric vehicles does not make good business sense for anyone. The fact is that consumers want them, with recent stats showing that for the first time in the UK, electric vehicles have outsold petrol cars over a 12-month window. Europe reached a similar milestone recently.
Electric is the future. As part of our ambition to reindustrialise our country, we absolutely want those electrical vehicles to be designed and built in Britain. A mandate to steer the industry into that electric future is needed, but, equally, if we accept that zero emissions is the destination, we have to partner with industry to get there. I know that Jaguar Land Rover is of that view too. We are consulting with the company and other manufacturers to ensure that the ZEV mandate works for our automotive industry—that it strikes the right balance, with targets that are ambitious yet realistic. The consultation on the ZEV mandate review closes on 23 October.
Jaguar Land Rover remains our largest car manufacturer. It is a linchpin of the UK automotive sector—a company with a long and proud history. Over many decades, it has become synonymous with the best of British design and engineering. That is true for past models such as the E-Type, the XJS, the F-Type, and it is true for the firm’s modern line-up, including the Land Rover Defender and the Discovery. These vehicles endure. Years after production ended, I note that the Jaguar I-PACE is still a vehicle of choice for companies operating driverless cars in the US and those testing them here in the UK.
With last week’s launch of the new fully electric Range Rover, I am confident that Jaguar Land Rover will get past this difficult period. It will emerge from it stronger and more competitive, holding its own in the global car market against the best of them from Germany, the United States and China.
For our part, we will use our industrial strategy and DRIVE35 to support JLR and the British automotive sector in this journey. In doing so, we will guarantee Britain’s status as a proud, successful car-making nation for many years to come. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. In his final Prime Minister’s questions, Keir Starmer spoke emotionally about how he had saved jobs at Jaguar Land Rover. Two months later, we hear news of 4,000 job losses at Britain’s biggest car manufacturer and the new Minister for Reindustrialisation is forced to make his first statement to the House on de-industrialisation. JLR workers will have spent another weekend contemplating their future, wondering about the impact on their careers, families and communities, and questioning the sustainability of the British car industry and the countless businesses in JLR’s nationwide supply chain—firms whose vital industrial capability, once lost, will be hard to replace.
JLR is still recovering from a crippling cyber-attack, of course, and the Minister has talked about the headwinds facing all car manufacturers. They include massive barriers erected by China to sell into its domestic market, while Chinese cars are aggressively sold into our own. Tech is changing the car industry from an engineering business to a component assembler and software installer. These shifts are huge and undisputed. The Business Secretary has said that JLR must become more competitive, but the question remains: what are he, the Chancellor and the new Prime Minister doing to make our country more competitive—and fast? I am not talking about tortoise-like speeches on triple helixes, sector plans, state-backed loans or union negotiations. I am talking about hard, urgent choices on tax, regulation and energy.
Let’s take the ZEV mandate, which dictates that the manufacture of petrol and diesel cars will be banned in this country in just over three years’ time, and which is seeing our firms being fined right now for customers not buying electric vehicles that they do not want. Having been manoeuvred into joint ventures and having had their designs copied by Chinese competitors, British manufacturers are now being forced to subsidise the Temu Range Rovers that are gobbling market share. It is crazy economic self-harm. The Conservatives would abolish the ZEV mandate. That is what unions want too. Can the Minister tell us: will the Government act?
Our industrial base is crippled by ruinous energy costs. We are being asked to applaud the Government’s industrial energy scheme, which does not start until next year, fails to address the underlying problem, and will not bring down prices for the whole economy. How will it position us against the competition? BICS will bring down energy costs by 25%, but given that our industrial electricity costs are four times that of the US, twice as high as France and 46% higher than the global average, our competitive disadvantage remains.
The Conservatives have a cheap power plan to slash energy costs for the entire economy. It involves hard-nosed choices: repealing the Climate Change Act 2008, axing the emissions trading scheme, scrapping wind and solar subsidies, investing in nuclear and getting the North sea drilling again. Will this Government be similarly tough, or will they continue to pretend that British industry is not having its legs cut off by net zero?
The Chancellor talked ploddingly this week about reducing the burdens on business, but the truth is that, through regulation and tax, the unemployment Act and the national insurance hike, Labour has made it riskier and more expensive to employ people. That is bad for business, because it adds another cost pressure, and it is bad for sales; 20% of JLR’s vehicles are for the domestic market, and right now too many Brits are too worried about tax bills, inflation and jobs to buy premium cars. How does this new iteration of Labour intend to untangle the mess of these past two years?
JLR sells nearly a third of its cars to America. US tariffs on them are four times higher than when Labour came in, but it is because we are outside the EU that we at least got a better tariff deal than member states—and it is the same with the India deal. As this new Prime Minister ingratiates himself with Brussels, can we be assured that he will not negotiate away our competitive advantages?
We know, too, that tariff and quota deals can change. The Foreign Secretary’s performative pronouncements on Israel and the Prime Minister’s ongoing failure to set out a defence plan risk antagonising the Americans and throwing us into another round of tariff negotiations that could cripple our car and life science industries. What will the Minister do to make sure that his colleagues are not jeopardising JLR jobs with dubious diplomacy, and are any trade measures being considered when it comes to China?
Britain is de-industrialising before our eyes. In the west midlands and beyond, there will be pain in every postcode. More Whitehall schemes and an army of mayors are not going to stop the rot. The Government cannot solve all of JLR’s problems, but it is the job of Ministers to create conditions in which it and countless other businesses can manufacture competitively in Britain. Are Ministers going to accept that this involves tough choices and then act with the urgency that this crisis demands?
Blair McDougall
This is a day to talk about the workers, who are deeply worried and are being communicated to by Jaguar Land Rover about the future of their employment, so I do not wish to be too political in my response. I will say, however, that I understand that it is the job of the Opposition to take fire at the Government, but we have to be careful in this House to make sure that industry is not collateral damage.
The hon. Lady talks about the supply chain. JLR has been very clear, publicly and in private to us and to the unions, that the production staff are not going to be impacted. This is not Jaguar Land Rover retreating from investment, lowering its ambitions and withdrawing from markets. The organisation is as ambitious as it has been, and it has as good a product—a world-beating product—as it ever had.
The hon. Lady asks what we are doing to tackle the headwinds that Jaguar Land Rover has cited when talking about this decision. There is a little bit of a habit developing in this House of the Conservatives asking why we are not fixing the damage that they did quickly enough. The British industrial competitiveness scheme that is coming in never existed under the previous Government. It will save an enormous amount for automotive manufacturers and their supply chain.
The hon. Lady rightly mentioned trade deals and recognised our trade deal with the United States, which no other country enjoys. We can all understand why she did not mention the relationship with Europe and the impact of trade deals that we inherited there, which Ministers across the Government are working incredibly hard to deal with at the moment—for example, with “Made in Europe” and rules of origin.
Finally, we inherited the ZEV mandate from the hon. Lady’s party—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) says from a sedentary position, “Well, change it.” We did change it. We changed it last year, in part to help plug-in hybrids, which was of enormous importance to Jaguar Land Rover.
As I said in my statement, we have recognised the scale of the challenges that the automotive sector faces worldwide. The hon. Lady makes a lot of criticisms, but I say to her that Volkswagen, which is letting 100,000 staff go, is not governed by a Labour Government. We have recognised the global headwinds. It is why we are putting into the automotive sector the biggest investment of the post-war period. Rather than criticising the industrial strategy, she should get in the car and travel that journey with us.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
The loss of 4,000 jobs at Jaguar Land Rover is a body blow for workers, families and communities across the west midlands, so I commend Richard Parker, the Mayor of the West Midlands, for moving quickly on Monday to put £500,000 on the table to help ensure that everybody gets back to work. Will the Minister pledge that if more is needed he will act to back the mayor in getting everybody back to work?
More broadly, will the Minister reiterate the pledges he made yesterday in front of the Select Committee to bring down costs—especially energy costs—and leave his mind open to the necessity of implementing tariffs on China, which is exporting cars that are over-subsidised? At the end of the day, everybody in the House believes in competition, but it needs to be fair competition.
Blair McDougall
I thank the Select Committee Chair for that series of questions. I know that for him this is not just a Committee interest but a local interest. I will take his points in reverse order.
As I said to my right hon. Friend yesterday in the Select Committee, we have to be very careful about Chinese imports. Our automotive industry is very export-focused, and the industry wants us to be very careful not to do anything in protecting our domestic manufacturers that might hurt them by closing down markets elsewhere. As I said to him yesterday, we are looking carefully at that, but we must be very careful.
On energy, we would love to go further than the British industrial competitiveness scheme. It is worth noting that when we initially introduced the proposal for BICS, it was for fewer businesses than will be eligible and will start to apply for it in a matter of days. We will continue to see how far we can go on that, because we are aware of how much of a problem there is for so many parts of industry.
Finally, we are working incredibly closely with the mayor. The main request from those involved in the situation at Jaguar Land Rover is that we continue to focus on the support we are giving to them in innovation, for the supply chain and in standing behind them, so that they come out strong and resilient on the other side of these global challenges.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
On the same day that the Chancellor stood up and claimed that his growth mission was working, it was reported that 4,000 more manufacturing jobs were being cut in the west midlands. This news will have been devastating for the thousands of workers and their families affected by the redundancies at Jaguar Land Rover as well as for the companies in the supply-chain industries that are affected. When Starmer’s Government announced that they would underwrite a rescue loan for JLR last year, the Liberal Democrats asked that the Prime Minister assure workers that the deal would be enough to protect their jobs; it was not. This development lays bare the fact that the Government’s growth mission is falling far short. We need to see bold action from the Chancellor on growing the economy across the UK.
Earlier this year, we called for the Government to review their tariffs on the steel sector due to the impact they would have on our manufacturing and defence industries, yet Ministers will not even negotiate a new growth and defence partnership with the EU that would unleash our auto industry by removing crippling rules-of-origin trade barriers. Is the Chancellor’s growth mission serious ambition or just words? What will the Government do to ensure that those highly specialised skills are not lost but fully utilised in our manufacturing sector?
Blair McDougall
I thank the hon. Member for those questions. She mentioned the cyber-attack and the £1.5 billion guarantee we gave to stand behind Jaguar Land Rover. That guarantee is still in place; it is there as a form of market reassurance for the company. JLR has not drawn on it yet, but it has served its purpose in reassuring the market.
The company is clear that that is only one of the factors; it is as much about challenges in the Chinese market and global trade challenges. The hon. Member rightly asked about the relationship with Europe. I reassure her that at posts in capitals across Europe, Ministers, like me, are constantly engaging with member states and their representatives both on rules-of-origin issues and on the “made in Europe” agenda. One of the encouraging things we see in that process is those arguments being made not only by our industry but by the deeply interconnected other side of the supply chain across the channel with member states. I reassure her that we are working hard on that.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)
There is concern about this news among my constituents who work at JLR Halewood and those who work in the supply chain in the whole of the north-west of England. The five-week suspension of manufacturing last year as a consequence of the cyber-attack has left a legacy of concern about the future and about financial resilience issues for some companies. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the full impact of this announcement on the supply chain is mitigated as much as possible and that resilience in our automotive supply chain is boosted for the future?
Blair McDougall
I know how important Jaguar Land Rover is for my right hon. Friend’s constituents; she voices their concern constantly on their behalf. Jaguar Land Rover has been clear that the job losses are focused largely on back-end and management staff and that the productive staff will not be impacted. That should be a source of encouragement and reassurance to the wider supply chain.
We are investing a huge amount into that wider supply chain. A moment ago I mentioned Agratas, where the £380 million investment leverages in £5 billion of investment. I could just as easily talk about the supply-chain pilots through DRIVE35 to ensure that the competitive edge and excellence we have in automotive engineering survives this global challenge period and we come out of it still as a productive and proud car-making nation.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
In my constituency we have Jaguar Land Rover Solihull. The Minister will know that Jaguar Land Rover and the automotive sector are in the DNA of my constituents in the west midlands. I agree with him about the global headwinds, but there is a massive issue with the high levels of red tape owing to the Employment Rights Act 2025 and the national insurance rises, which will inevitably destroy consumer demand and make our automotive sector less competitive. Will he at least acknowledge that that has had an impact?
Blair McDougall
Absolutely, I recognise that it is our job to lower costs on the industry. That is why, for example, we are taking action on energy costs to make them more competitive. That should take us roughly to the European average so that we can compete with our nearest neighbours.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member’s constituents who are staff at Jaguar Land Rover in Solihull. Just a few days ago, I was at Jaguar Land Rover in Coventry, seeing the extraordinary, almost sci-fi level of work done there. It is right that we express concern and worry for our constituents, but we should also celebrate the incredible manufacturing being done now, which will continue for generations to come.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I was particularly disappointed by this announcement on Saturday. Over the last two years, we have worked hard in Birmingham Erdington to protect jobs at Jaguar Land Rover’s Castle Bromwich site. Given the announcement of 4,000 job losses across JLR, my constituents are deeply concerned about what that means for their livelihoods following thousands of job losses in previous rounds of reorganisation. Will the Minister assure me today about the future of the Castle Bromwich site? If JLR plans future job losses, what steps are the Government taking with it to work with others to protect jobs not just now, but in the future? We want to ensure that there are no future job losses.
Blair McDougall
I thank my hon. Friend for the question. I know how important JLR is to her constituents: she makes that clear constantly to me and other Ministers. The key thing we can do is to invest in the company’s future productive capacity. I mentioned the investment in Agratas a moment ago, and recently we made substantial investment through DRIVE35 into software-defined vehicle research in the company. The conversation that we are having with JLR right now is about how to protect not just high-value jobs directly in JLR but the high-value jobs in the wider supply chain that so many of our constituents rely on.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)
JLR’s plan to cut 4,000 jobs is devastating for workers, families and communities in Coventry and across the west midlands. JLR is based in my constituency and its highly skilled workforce is vital to our region’s economy and industrial future. The trade union Unite is right to demand urgent answers and for every alternative to job losses to be explored. The Business Secretary has now met JLR and Unite, so can the Minister tell the House what has actually been secured from JLR, a company that has already been granted £1.5 billion of public money? Will the Department publish the company’s plans in full, rule out compulsory redundancies and make it clear that not a penny more of taxpayers’ money will support a company that is throwing thousands of workers on to the scrap heap?
Blair McDougall
Well, I agreed with the hon. Lady right up until the end there: we have to keep investing in JLR to secure those jobs. I met some of her constituents last week and felt their sense of pride. This is not just about jobs or economic production; it is part of the sense of local pride in her area. When we and the Secretary of State met the union and management earlier on, we pressed them on exactly those issues. The conversation was about the phasing of those changes, how they interact with the roll-out of the new models and when those job losses would kick in. The union and the business will continue to work on that, and we will continue that conversation as well.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Today’s announcement from Jaguar Land Rover is devastating for its workforce, for the automotive industry and for the wider supply chain. A manufacturing supplier to JLR in my constituency has lost more than 150 jobs. What access to finance will the Government provide to help west midlands firms diversify, enter new markets and protect skilled jobs?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend rightly says that Jaguar Land Rover and the other big automotive names do not exist in isolation; they are part of much wider supply chains. On the issue of access to finance and funding, obviously a lot of the DRIVE35 programme goes to those larger companies, but it goes right across that supply chain, investing in so many of the strengths that we have, particularly electric propulsion and software-defined vehicles. In addition, £50 million has been devolved to the mayor in the west midlands to work on those supply-chain resiliences, and we will continue to work with the mayor to agree what needs to be done to secure those supply chains for the future as we go through this pretty challenging period for automotive.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Jaguar Land Rover hack started over a year ago: manufacturing ground to a halt and the Government stepped in and made the UK taxpayer the insurer of last resort to the tune of £1.5 billion. Yet the Government have still not said who did this to our country. It has been widely reported that the attack was state-sponsored. At a time when we should be having a national conversation about the threats we face, will the Government use this opportunity to tell us which country did this to us, and, more importantly, have there been repercussions?
Blair McDougall
I may look suave and debonaire, but I am not James Bond, so I will resist commenting on the attribution of that. It would be for the Minister for Security and the Home Secretary to do that; these are serious matters. What I will say is that we were right to put that £1.5 billion in place. It has not been drawn on, but it did give a vote of confidence to one of our most important manufacturers at a moment of genuine crisis.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I represent Redditch, which has a proud automotive history and is home to thousands of the 100,000-plus jobs that are part of the supply chain that supports JLR, and we are all deeply concerned about the statement from JLR. This Government did everything they could with the £1.5 billion loan—not bail-out—to support JLR, so will the Minister assure me that, if worse is to come, the Government will not falter in any way in giving support to protect these jobs? If the jobs are lost further down the road, they will never come back, as other areas in Birmingham can attest. Will the Minister assure me that this Labour Government will make sure that, whatever the headwinds facing JLR and the pressures from China, we will not lose this crucial industry in our country?
Blair McDougall
I can reassure my hon. Friend on that. I should say that in our conversations, Jaguar Land Rover has been at pains to talk about this. It was described earlier as bitter medicine, but JLR is not in any way rowing back from its investment. It is investing really significantly in the future of the company. We will be alongside it as it makes those strategic investments, and as it makes sure, as my hon. Friend says, that it continues to flourish for a long time to come.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
This announcement is a devastating blow for my constituents who are employed by JLR, and they will be incredibly worried for their future and their families, so what discussions have the Government had with JLR and the affected authorities—not just the West Midlands combined authority, because JLR is present in Warwickshire as well—regarding support for employees at risk of redundancy, and what measures will the Government put in place to help affected workers secure alternative employment?
Blair McDougall
We are working very closely on behalf of the hon. Lady’s constituents, who I know will be troubled at the moment, and with the local mayors and local authorities. Most of the conversations and the asks made of us are about ensuring that the wider automotive supply chain and advanced manufacturing sector in the region continues to thrive, so that those highly skilled workers—they come from a company with an incredible pedigree—can more easily move into other jobs in the sector, and the skills can be maintained in the hon. Lady’s part of the world.
Mary Creagh (Coventry East) (Lab)
The actions taken by this Government stand in stark contrast to the actions of previous Conservative Governments, who were happy to watch the closure of the Massey Ferguson factory, the Alvis tank factory and Peugeot in Coventry in the ’80s, which led to 20% unemployment in the city where I grew up. After those closures, we saw the financial services industry target workers, some of whom were in defined benefit pension schemes and considering voluntary redundancy, and persuade them to transfer to a less beneficial pension. After firms had gone bust, people realised that they had been mis-sold their pension. Will the Minister take every possible step to protect the pension prosperity of those who will face voluntary or compulsory redundancy at the global headquarters of JLR at Whitley in Coventry?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend raises a really important point—one that I confess has not come across my desk yet. After this statement, I will make sure that we are raising this point with the relevant regulators, and will perhaps talk to friends in the Treasury about it, because it would be awful if really skilled workers who have a redundancy payment that they have earned through years of hard work have it snatched away by disreputable finance companies.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Learning of these potential job losses was deeply concerning for me as a Member of Parliament for Birmingham, because job losses impact not just individuals and their immediate family, but local economies. The regional mayor has set aside half a million pounds, but that is not new money; it is money that he had for other projects. Will the Minister specifically state what funding this Government will provide to the local mayor and the local councils—and I am not talking about the £1.5 billion loan?
Blair McDougall
As I said to other hon. Members, throughout the conversations that we have been having with people in the region, including the mayor and the company, the ask has been that we stand behind the wider sector and supply chain and make sure that things are available in the future. The hon. Gentleman mentioned skills; he will be aware that the changes that we have made—such as the move to shorter, more flexible apprenticeships—are very focused on the automotive industry, so we are already putting significant amounts of funding into advanced manufacturing in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world and will continue to do so. We stand ready to work with people in the region to maintain skills and manufacturing there, whatever it takes.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
My next-door neighbour works at JLR, and people in my constituency have worked there their whole life. They and others in the wider manufacturing supply chain will be rightly concerned about their future, and I share their concern. I welcome the package of measures put in place by Labour Mayor Richard Parker, but what more will the Minister do to support motor manufacturing in the west midlands and protect our industrial future?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, as she always does, on behalf of her constituents who work in automotive. Many of those workers, because they are very highly skilled and because Jaguar Land Rover is such a prestigious organisation to have worked in, will find themselves in work again very quickly, but that is almost not the point. This will be like mourning for them, because they will be leaving a company with which they are deeply connected emotionally. We are investing £4 billion in the automotive industry—it is the biggest investment in the automotive sector in post-war Britain, as I said earlier—precisely to ensure that the high-quality jobs that her constituents rely on, not just in the big automotive primes but all across the supply chain, are there for her constituents for generations to come. I will continue to work with her on that.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Jaguar Land Rover is Britain’s largest car manufacturer, so it is deeply concerning for workers and the whole supply chain, including Agratas in my constituency, to learn of 4,000 job losses there. JLR is at a competitive disadvantage, given the excessive energy costs in Britain. Does the Minister agree that the key to protecting Britain’s manufacturing is to provide lower electricity costs to all businesses in Britain?
Blair McDougall
I would absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, which is precisely why we are taking action, not just through the British industrial competitiveness scheme, but through the supercharger. This is an incredibly important issue, not only for automotive and advanced manufacturing, but for the entire economy, given the impact on our growth, and that is precisely why we are acting on it. In addition to tackling energy costs, investing in innovation is incredibly important, because that is what we will compete on in this global market—not on low costs, but on better ideas and products.
Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)
Four thousand job losses will have a massive impact on the west midlands, and particularly on Birmingham Selly Oak, where hundreds of jobs will be affected and people’s economic futures will be cut short. I welcome Richard Parker’s half a million pounds of support, but I worry that JLR’s “global market conditions” boils down to three key things: Chinese domination of the electrical vehicle market, not just in the UK, but across the entirety of Europe; tariffs from America; and perhaps the first salvo in what we would call advanced or artificial intelligence taking over administrative and managerial roles in major manufacturing companies across the entirety of Europe. What are the Government doing to prepare themselves for AI replacing a lot of these jobs, and what are we doing to help?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend nails so many of the challenges. He mentions Chinese exports. The flip side of that is our manufacturers’ ability to access the Chinese market, and particularly the incredible difficulty of competing in China against highly subsidised Chinese-made cars. On technology, part of the reason why we are investing so heavily in, for example, software-defined vehicles and autonomous vehicles is that we want to be ahead of the curve. We want to be the country that leads on this. Just a few days ago, we saw the beginning of autonomous vehicles on the road in this city. I was in the midlands a few days ago with Aurrigo, an incredible company making autonomous vehicles that take freight and luggage around airports. We have so many companies who have the ability to turn what he rightly identifies as a potential threat into a competitive advantage for us in the world, and that is why we are investing so heavily in this.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
This House needs to wake up urgently, because the truth is that these 4,000 JLR jobs are being sacrificed on the altar of net stupid zero, which was introduced in 2019, since when JLR production has collapsed from almost 400,000 vehicles to under 200,000. Energy prices have doubled, and the previous Conservative Government introduced the ridiculous zero emission vehicle mandate. Meanwhile, Chinese imports have increased from a few thousand vehicles to almost 300,000—some 15% of the market. The whole of the UK market will be destroyed in the next five to seven years unless this Government take urgent action. Will the Government do the right thing, scrap the ZEV mandate, and do what the US has done: introduce 100% tariffs on all Chinese EV imports?
Blair McDougall
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question. He knows that we are reviewing the ZEV mandate. The destination of electric remains, but the question of how quickly we go there is under review. He stands there as the supposed defender of Jaguar Land Rover, but I simply remind him that when we stepped in with £1.5 billion to protect Jaguar Land Rover, his party leader said:
“I predict Jaguar will now go bust. And you know what? They deserve to”.
The hon. Gentleman should apologise for that.
Sureena Brackenridge
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have had reassurance that my constituents who work at the i54 Wolverhampton site will be largely unaffected. However, for those across the west midlands who are affected, this is deeply concerning, so I thank Mayor Richard Parker for the £500,000 support package. Will the Minister take heed of the concern expressed by JLR and the wider automotive sector about imports flooding the UK market, and act to ensure that the industry remains competitive and to safeguard future jobs?
Blair McDougall
I am glad that my hon. Friend has had that reassurance for her constituents, but she will know that they will be affected by this, in the sense that they feel that they are part of the JLR family; it has such a strong identity as a company. As I said, we are working carefully with representatives of the industry on the issue of Chinese imports. It is worth saying that the industry is nervous about the issue. It is worried about the impact of the increased number of Chinese EVs coming into our market, but it also wants to be able to access the Chinese market, and does not want to get into a retaliatory situation, so we do not rule anything out, but we are being very careful as we work with the industry on that issue.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and for keeping Members of this House informed on the situation in JLR. Although we have had reassurances that production jobs will not be affected, when the cyber-attack happened, a lot of the supply chain companies and their employees were adversely affected. Can the Minister give some reassurance that they will not be affected by this latest round of redundancies? Can he also please give the reassurance that he will continue to work with the trade unions and other partners?
Blair McDougall
I can certainly give that reassurance. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and I have been in contact with the unions in recent days about this issue.
On a day when so many people are worried about job losses, it is difficult to strike a positive note, but in everything that JLR has been saying, including about protecting blue-collar production workers—it recognises that it does not want to eat into its future as a company—is a reassurance that the investment pipeline will continue. Beyond this difficult period, the company and the supply chain will have a really bright future in this country.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The Minister will appreciate the concern that announcements of redundancies at major manufacturers such as JLR will create for employees, families and businesses across not just those manufacturers but the wider supply chain and industry. In my constituency, Bentley Motors has invested hundreds of millions of pounds over the past decade, but what more can the Government do to support the UK automotive sector? Will the Minister join me in welcoming the forthcoming launch of Bentley’s first electric vehicle, the Torcal, on 23 September?
Blair McDougall
When my hon. Friend mentioned the Torcal, I thought he might have been referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton).
The other day, I was with Bentley representatives at a roundtable at the HORIBA MIRA testing facility in the midlands to talk about exactly those issues. We are working closely with the company on plans for the next stage of its activity, particularly with regard to making the most of the Indian trade deal.
I warmly congratulate Bentley on the Torcal. How high-end that vehicle is—1,000 layers of walnut veneer within the interior! This is a seriously impressive product from a company with an incredible heritage.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
The automotive sector is hugely important to Banbury, with numerous companies supporting hundreds of jobs, including in the supply chain for Jaguar Land Rover. People there will be nervous about the news over recent days. Can the Minister provide them and me with reassurance about the support that the Government will provide the company and others in the supply chain?
Blair McDougall
As I said a moment ago, yes, the focus is rightly on Jaguar Land Rover and the individual workers, but we know that other people will be worried, particularly given the recent memory of the impact of the cyber-attack on supply chains. We are absolutely committed to investing in those supply chains to learn the lessons of that attack and invest in their resilience. That is why we are putting particular pots of money into those areas—generally, and through DRIVE35 and the CAM pathfinders—to ensure that we are investing in supply chain resilience. That is important for automotive, defence and all sorts of other areas of advanced manufacturing.
Bill Presented
Utilities and Services
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John McDonnell, supported by Rachael Maskell, Richard Burgon, Dr Simon Opher, Apsana Begum, Cat Eccles, Kim Johnson, Rebecca Long Bailey, Jon Trickett, Imran Hussain, Ian Byrne and Neil Duncan-Jordan, presented a Bill to make provision about the public ownership and delivery of certain services and utilities by public or not-for-profit enterprises; to establish a body corporate to be known as the Office for Public Value; to confer functions on that body; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 143).
Global Tin Availability
Blair McDougall Excerpts(2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. It is also a pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and to congratulate him on securing this debate. It is a further pleasure to be taken back, at least momentarily, to my summer holiday in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law). I will not say where I would rather be at this particular moment.
Scientists have said that the shortest scientifically measurable period of time is 247 zeptoseconds, but I can confirm that my own research has found an even shorter measurable time than that, which is the period between someone being appointed the Minister for critical minerals and all the Labour MPs from Cornwall contacting them to ask for meetings and conversations about the potential for critical minerals in that part of the world. Perhaps appropriately for a debate on mining, they are Stakhanovian in their work effort on this issue.
This debate on global tin availability is timely, as has been said. It is not always the mineral that attracts the big headlines, but to respond to the first request of my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, I confirm that the Government absolutely recognise that tin is central and fundamental to modern economic life. It is the solder that connects circuit boards, semiconductors, data infrastructure, automotive electrics and of course defence technologies. When global tin supply is tight, the impact can be felt far beyond mining markets, in manufacturing costs, supply chain resilience, investment decisions and, ultimately, the UK’s ability to deliver growth, energy security and national security.
My hon. Friend’s constituency is absolutely central to that discussion and to meeting those challenges. It is home to significant tin deposits, including the South Crofty tin mine, which has a high-grade tin resource and the potential to re-establish meaningful primary tin production in the UK. That matters not only for Cornwall’s proud mining heritage, which I was going to say goes back to the bronze age, but given that tin is one of the constituent parts of bronze, perhaps it predates the bronze age. Cornwall is the tin isles mentioned by Herodotus. As has been said, however, the future of tin mining is of much more immediate importance, and a source of excitement. The question before us is not simply whether we can mine more tin again, but how a secure, responsible and diverse tin supply can support jobs, industrial competitiveness, clean energy deployment and economic resilience.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for securing this debate. I am sponsoring an event next door at which I had to speak, so I could not be in the Chamber, although I intended to be here. I spoke to you earlier, Mrs Barker, for permission to ask a question instead.
The hon. Gentleman is a fantastic spokesman for Cornwall. He is present whenever we debate a subject that has to do with Cornwall, and I congratulate him on that. This issue is of particular significance for us in Northern Ireland, and we want to add our support for what the hon. Gentleman is doing, because we have no major domestic source of tin and rely on imported supplies, making businesses vulnerable to international supply chain disruption. Businesses in Northern Ireland also face additional complex regulatory requirements to ensure that tin is not linked to conflict or illegal mining.
We in Northern Ireland want to add our support to Cornish Metals’ plans to establish production at the South Crofty mine in Cornwall, which could support the securing of a supply for the west and ensure that Northern Ireland has accessible tin at an affordable price, with no EU interference in the trade. I again commend the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth and I look to the Minister to support him. We certainly support him in Northern Ireland.
Blair McDougall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his offer of support for the effort. One of Northern Ireland’s key economic strengths is advanced manufacturing, and the importance of tin runs through that sector from top to bottom. Tin underpins so much: advanced manufacturing, automotive production, aerospace, clean energy technologies, data centres, telecommunications and defence, all of which are important for Northern Ireland and the UK at large. If tin is scarce, volatile or increasingly concentrated in a few countries, as hon. Members have mentioned, those pressures can affect investment confidence, productivity and our competitiveness in the sectors within the industrial strategy.
It is not enough, as my hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay and for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) have said, simply to leave this matter to the market. We have a responsibility to make sure that local people benefit from it. As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall also said, it is essential to our ability to deliver on the industrial strategy as a whole. Critical minerals in themselves are an essential part of the UK economy, but they also underpin everything else that we are trying to achieve. That is why the critical minerals strategy is focused on resilience, improving our understanding of demand, supporting domestic capability where it is viable and environmentally responsible, increasing recycling and working with international partners so that UK businesses are not dependent on fragile or overly concentrated sources of supply.
We cannot onshore every part of the supply chain, but where we have those resources—as we clearly do in Cornwall—capable companies, the environmental protections and community support here in the UK, we can make a contribution to that resilience. That is why, for example, we supported the South Crofty tin project through £20 million of equity investment and last week announced a £71 million investment into Tungsten West. As hon. Members have said, exploration and mining are great, but we also want to see more processing, refining and recycling in the UK. That is why we put the £25 million critical minerals accelerator in place: to help viable projects to get over that hump and get into the market. It is why we are introducing BICS to make the energy costs for potential refining projects more affordable and dealing with things like grid connections.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), asked about intelligence. We have instituted the growth minerals list to get a sense of our demand and introduced the demand aggregator to get a sense of that with allies. The Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre published a prospectivity report, which sets out exactly what he asked about in terms of the potential resources, and we work with the British Geological Survey on that basis. As I said, we are working with international partners to make sure that we have reliable prices, diverse sources and material produced to the high standards that the modern economy requires.
In conclusion, tin has a major economic footprint. It connects the technologies that power our homes, vehicles, factories and communications. The global availability of tin therefore matters to prices, productivity, resilience and good growth. The Government’s approach is clear: support responsible domestic production where we can, recover more value through recycling, build better data on demand, mobilise finance and work with international partners to diversify supply. By doing so, we can reduce vulnerability, support British industry, create skilled jobs and ensure that the UK economy has access to the critical minerals that it needs for the future. I look forward to working with hon. Friends to that end—and, as I am the only person who has not mentioned Tinder, let me finish by saying that I will always swipe right for my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth.
CPTPP: Canada
Blair McDougall Excerpts(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
From 1 September 2026, the UK’s accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership (CPTPP) enters into force with Canada. Following Canada’s ratification, UK companies can trade with Canada under CPTPP terms for the first time.
This means that the UK’s accession to CPTPP is now in force with all other member countries. British businesses can now access the full benefits of the agreement across all 11 CPTPP parties.
Canada is a close UK partner and fellow G7 member. It was the UK’s largest CPTPP trading partner in the four quarters to the end of Q1 2026, accounting for 23% of all UK trade with CPTPP. Canada was also the world’s 10th largest economy in 2025, with a market of 42 million people and GDP of $2.3 trillion.
Benefits for UK traders and consumers
Entry into force of the UK’s CPTPP accession with Canada means that we have secured access to Canadian tariff rate quotas covering a wide variety of dairy products, including cheese, cream and ice cream. This provides UK farmers and dairy producers with additional tariff-free market access to Canada and opens further opportunities to increase exports.
The agreement will also make short-term business travel to Canada more flexible. UK business visitors will be able to stay for up to six months, with the option to extend.
Alongside this, new digital trade commitments will further support UK businesses by permitting them to store data entirely digitally, rather than having to establish physical facilities in Canada. These commitments will be particularly useful for small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) looking to expand into Canada and across CPTPP economies.
By improving access to information, reducing barriers to trade and increasing transparency, CPTPP will also help SMEs take advantage of new opportunities across the bloc.
Additionally, there will be access to new public procurement opportunities by giving businesses in both countries enhanced access to markets not covered under previous agreements. For UK suppliers, this includes opportunities in sectors such as air transport, accounting and financial services.
The UK will continue working with Canada and the other CPTPP members to build on the opportunities it creates for businesses, consumers and economic growth.
I will keep the House updated on future CPTPP developments.
[HCWS296]