Wind Farms: Protected Peatland
Chris McDonald Excerpts(2 weeks 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 and Trade (Chris McDonald)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this debate, which I know is very important for his constituency, just as it is for the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn)—I know that he has done a huge amount of work in engaging Ministers on this topic and I thank him for that. He is probably the person in the room who has the greatest intimate knowledge of the bottom of a peat bog. I also wish everybody a very happy World Curlew Day.
The Government’s ambition of clean power by 2030 is critical for moving all of us off our costly reliance on fossil fuels and for protecting consumer bills. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), rightly said that we need more investment in small, modular reactors. That is true, but we also need to invest in our cheapest form of energy, which is solar; our second cheapest, which is onshore wind; our third cheapest, which is offshore wind; and full scale nuclear and small modular reactors. We need to do all those things for our energy security, to bring bills down and, of course, to tackle climate change.
Recent events in the middle east have reinforced the importance of producing home-grown clean energy. Delivering our clean power mission will help to boost Britain’s energy independence, protect bill payers, support high-skilled jobs and tackle the climate crisis. Onshore wind is a critical component to delivering those goals. Getting more low-cost renewables such as onshore wind on to the system reduces our exposure to volatile global fossil fuel markets, protecting British families from the effects of future price shocks. This Government will continue to support onshore wind. We have removed the damaging de facto ban in England that has been in place for almost a decade and reintroduced the technology into the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime.
Robbie Moore
The very point the Minister is making is the reason why the application for the Calderdale wind farm has come before us: because this Labour Government removed the onshore wind moratorium put in place by the last Conservative Administration. Given the concerns that I raised about the protected nature of that peatland and the impact on the precious peat, and all the concerns raised by Opposition Members, what is the Government’s position when there is an application that is on protected peat?
Chris McDonald
I hope the hon. Member will recognise that as I continue my remarks I will address many of the points that he made in his speech, including the point about peatland. From the contributions we have heard today, I would say there is strong agreement in this room on the need both to tackle climate change and to care for our special environments in the UK, including peatland. He will hear more on that from me shortly.
Removing the ban on onshore wind was a very early and important decision that the Government made. The onshore wind projects deliver a very low-cost form of energy and improve our energy security. The momentum is on our side. Last year, onshore wind power produced 12% of our total electricity. We recognise, of course, that poorly sited, poorly designed onshore wind farms have impacts on local communities in relation to wildlife, local heritage and residents’ sense of place. That is why our planning system has strong checks and balances to manage those impacts, including through requirements for extensive up-front surveys and statutory assessments on the impacts of the environment and important habitats. Those checks and balances extend, of course, to peatlands.
We know that peatlands are vital for biodiversity, for carbon and for water. Peatlands are sensitive habitats and are important for many species of flora and fauna. Because peat soils are rich in carbon, disturbances will have climate impacts. We therefore recognise that building infrastructure such as onshore wind on peatland can have detrimental impacts, and we appreciate that communities have valid concerns about that. An e-petition, to which the Government responded last year, called for a ban on building onshore wind farms on peatland in England, and we have heard those calls repeated in this debate. That is why we have protections in the planning system requiring careful consideration from developers and decision makers when onshore wind farm developments are proposed on peatlands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) also asked a question about the protection of peatlands. Approximately half of England’s deep peat and a quarter of all England’s peat soils are afforded special protection through being classed as irreplaceable habitats, as we heard earlier. That affords additional protection in the planning process. The Government have published specific guidance for onshore wind and peat in the national policy statements, which are used to assess the impacts of nationally significant infrastructure projects.
We heard earlier about EN-3, the national policy statement for renewable energy, which makes clear that, although onshore wind is permitted on peatland, applicants should seek and rule out other locations first. EN-3 guides developers to avoid peatland where possible, particularly areas of deep peat. Where that is not possible, developers are required to mitigate or compensate for peatland impacts. We are now going further to give decision makers and developers more tools to assess and manage the impacts of onshore wind on peatland. We committed in EN-3 to publish additional guidance regarding wind farm construction on peatland in England, something the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) asked about in particular.
I can confirm that we are in ongoing discussions with the Scottish Government about developing a carbon calculator tool for England similar to the one currently used in Scotland, which could inform policy decisions around developments on peatlands. I hope that my words have clarified the Government’s position and addressed some of the concerns. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley might be disappointed that I have not directly referenced the project in his constituency, but hopefully he realises that, given the role of the Secretary of State, I have constrained my comments to speak more generally.
Robbie Moore
I recognise that, but I have written to the Secretary of State urging the Government to extend the consultation period that is in place right now—it ends on 10 June. Given that the developer put this consultation in place in the middle of local elections, the two key councils, Bradford and Calderdale, cannot comment formally until after those elections, and it is also likely that there will be a change in leadership in those councils. Will the Secretary of State, via the Minister, consider at least extending that statutory consultation so that more people can get engaged and we can have proper responses from the two key councils?
Chris McDonald
I am grateful for that intervention, because the hon. Member is right; he mentioned that and I meant to respond to it, but I had forgotten. It is important to note that there is no role for the Government in extending the consultation—that is a matter for the developer, but I am sure that any responsible developer would listen very carefully to the voice of the local community and Members of Parliament, so it is important that he has put that on the record.
Our clean power 2030 mission is our route to lower bills, greater energy security and resilience, economic growth and the revival of regions that have been left behind, including our industrial heartlands. However, we also know that it cannot and must not come at an unacceptable cost to our natural world and our communities, so we are taking a balanced approach. We do not believe that clean energy must come at the expense of our environment. That is why we are investing significantly in protecting and restoring nature, including peatlands, while providing the protections and flexibility we need through the planning system to manage impacts and enable deployment.
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley for securing this debate; I thank everyone who participated—and of course I thank you, Sir Alec, in the Chair.
British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme
Chris McDonald Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
I am pleased to be able to update the House that the Government are continuing to make progress on delivering a key flagship policy of the industrial strategy. This includes publishing the response to a consultation on eligibility for the British industrial competitiveness scheme, alongside launching a separate consultation on the regulatory changes required to give effect to BICS and its delivery.
As the House is aware, British industries face some of the highest industrial electricity prices in Europe—an issue regularly cited as a barrier to growth and investment in our industrial strategy growth sectors. This has been made even more acute by the current situation in the middle east, and the Government are aware that businesses are concerned by the instability and potential impact on energy prices and supply chains that this has caused. However, BICS is a long-term intervention designed to address Britain’s long-standing competitiveness challenge, and it does so by supporting our key manufacturing frontier industries, as well as the manufacturing foundational industries in their supply chains. This will bring industrial electricity costs for these businesses more closely in line with those in other economies in Europe, helping to level the playing field.
Following consultation, the Government have determined that eligibility for BICS will be based on both standard industrial classification codes, to identify eligible manufacturing sectors, and harmonised system codes, to confirm eligible products. Only businesses with both an eligible SIC and HS code will qualify. Different electricity-intensity thresholds will be applied at the sector level for frontier and foundational manufacturing industries, reflecting their characteristics and ensuring support is targeted to maximise the scheme’s growth and investment impact. The value of support will then be determined at site level, based on the proportion of electricity used for eligible manufacturing activity. The scheme will reduce electricity costs for over 10,000 eligible businesses by up to £40 per megawatt hour.
We also heard that support is needed sooner. While BICS cannot be operationalised earlier due to the regulatory and delivery changes required, the Government announced that they have decided to provide an additional payment in 2027, covering the 2026-27 period, reflecting the support eligible businesses would have received had the scheme been in operation earlier. The Government are clear that this support will be funded through a combination of Exchequer support and by bearing down on costs elsewhere in the energy system, ensuring that no other energy bills will rise as a result of this scheme. My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury has also updated the House on specific elements of these funding arrangements today (statement UIN HCWS1519).
The next consultation seeks views on the proposed regulatory changes and scheme delivery. I encourage Members to contact stakeholders in their constituencies to make them aware of the scheme and invite them to respond before the consultation closes on 14 May.
[HCWS1521]
Carbon Dioxide Supply
Chris McDonald Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
This statement provides an update on Government intervention in the supply of carbon dioxide.
On 26 March 2026, in response to risks to supply chains arising from the ongoing conflict in the middle east, the Government directed Ensus UK Ltd to restart production to generate a significant volume of carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide will be captured and sold to the market for use in food manufacture and preservation, beverage manufacture, energy, healthcare, and other essential applications.
For several months, the Government have been in discussion with Ensus to agree a standby arrangement. Under this arrangement, Ensus is required to maintain the plant in a quiescent state, at modest cost to Government, and keeps it ready to be activated at short notice in the event of a carbon dioxide shortage, or a credible risk of one emerging.
When the Government could have stepped back and let the plant close last year, we stepped in to keep it available. This intervention illustrates the different approach taken by this Government—an active and strategic state prepared to act where it is in the national interest. While previous Governments closed Britain’s gas storage, this Government have repeatedly acted to support our resilience, from saving British Steel from collapse to securing the future of the chemical cracker at Grangemouth. The Ensus intervention is part of that same deliberate pattern.
It forms part of wider Government work to ensure the UK maintains access to critical industrial inputs during periods of global supply disruption, such as the ongoing conflict in the middle east.
The Government are also taking steps to diversify the UK’s long-term carbon dioxide supply, strengthening UK resilience and reducing exposure to future global shocks. We will work with industry to develop and deliver this long-term plan.
My Department will continue to work with industry and relevant lead Government Departments to monitor risks to supply. We will protect taxpayers’ money by operating the plant only for as long as necessary. This is why we have agreed that the plant will operate for an initial period of three months but will be subject to regular review. The Department for Business and Trade will closely monitor the associated spend, which will be reported in DBT’s accounts for 2026-27, with 2025-26 spend also disclosed in the annual report and accounts. If conditions require it, the Government will not hesitate to extend this period and will retain the ability to restart the plant for a longer period as a precautionary measure.
[HCWS1501]
British Steel
Chris McDonald Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
The Government committed to updating Parliament on British Steel every four sitting weeks for the duration of the period of special measures being applied under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025.
The Government’s priority remains to maintain the safe operation of the blast furnaces at British Steel. Government officials are continuing to provide on-site support in Scunthorpe, ensuring uninterrupted domestic steel production and monitoring the use of taxpayer funds.
On funding, the position remains that all Government funding for British Steel will be drawn from existing budgets, within the spending envelope set out at spring statement 2025. To date, we have provided approximately £419 million for working capital, covering items such as raw materials and salaries. This will be reflected in the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for 2025-26.
We continue to work with Jingye to find a pragmatic, realistic solution for the future of the site. Once a solution is found, we will terminate the directions issued to British Steel under the Act and make a statement on the need to retain, or repeal, the legislation. As we have stated previously, our long-term aspiration for the UK steel sector will require co-investment with the private sector to enable modernisation and decarbonisation and to safeguard taxpayers’ money.
Liberty Pipes Hartlepool sale
We understand that Liberty has run a sales process for their site in Hartlepool, with Corinth Pipeworks announced as the buyer. This is a commercial sale in which Government have not been involved. We welcome the new investment in this site.
[HCWS1469]
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris McDonald Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
We are supporting private sector investment in Buckingham and Bletchley by working with partners across the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor to find new opportunities for businesses. I acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend in launching the Bletchley investment taskforce, which is bringing together private capital and local partners, using infrastructure such as East West Rail to improve connectivity, and working with OxCam partners so that local businesses benefit from innovation, skills and inward investment.
Callum Anderson
As the Minister says, I launched the Bletchley investment taskforce last year to attract the businesses, investments, jobs and apprenticeships that local people need, and we are developing an investment prospectus to deliver that end. Will the Minister meet me and taskforce members to ensure that the Government are working hand in hand with local partners?
Chris McDonald
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work with the Bletchley investment taskforce. I know that businesses in his constituency, such as Envisics, Carnot and Pulsar, have benefited from the work he has done, and I would be very happy to ensure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
I thank my hon. Friend, who is an advocate and champion of businesses in Lichfield. As I am sure he is aware, we are making sure that the UK is the best place in the world to invest by backing priority sectors through our industrial strategy. The advanced manufacturing sector plan will strengthen UK supply chains in sectors such as automotive, aerospace and clean energy industries, ensuring that businesses in Lichfield, such as its manufacturing and logistics businesses, get the skills, technology and new commercial opportunities that they need.
Dave Robertson
The quantum technology sector is hugely important for the UK. We have world-leading researchers and businesses innovating in healthcare, defence and many more industries, but quantum firms tell me that as they grow, they find it harder and harder to secure the investment that they need to commercialise their exceptional ideas. The risk that we face is that they will take their businesses out of the UK in order to seek that investment. That is why I recently established the all-party parliamentary group on quantum technologies to help Members of both Houses to understand this rapidly evolving sector. What can the Government do to ensure that our quantum businesses get the investment that they need to grow here in the UK?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for his work in establishing the all-party parliamentary group on quantum technologies. He is right to identify these technologies as very important for the future, and to put his finger on the particular problem that we have in the UK: while we are brilliant at innovating and investing in research, we have historically struggled with scale-up. That is not something that this Government are prepared to accept. Just as we are investing in critical minerals and automotive connected mobility technologies, we are investing in this area. The British Business Bank is doubling its annual investments to ensure that we can support scale-up and bring forward at least 10 new-to-market growth-stage funds so that we can leverage pension investments and help British businesses to stay and grow in the UK.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
An increase in private sector investment is being seriously held back by the failure of the Government to publish their defence investment plan. Has the Minister any idea when this much-awaited document will hit the streets?
Chris McDonald
The Government recognise the importance of the defence industrial plan, which will be brought to the House as soon as it can be. On private sector investment, £10 billion of investment came in from the regional summits, and £79 billion of investment was identified in the last industrial strategy quarterly report. Investors are voting with their money, and they are investing in the UK.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
There was a new private sector investor in the Royal Mail last year. As we heard yesterday in the House, the regulator has let the universal service obligation slip, so will the Minister update the House on how his colleague’s meeting with the regulator went yesterday?
Chris McDonald
The Minister responsible for the Post Office and the Royal Mail, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), is sitting beside me. Just yesterday, he spent 90 minutes in the House answering questions from Members who have had problems with the service across the whole of the country; I have seen such problems in my constituency as well. The Government are clearly not happy with the level of service from the Royal Mail, and the shadow Minister will hear a full response to Question 15, when my hon. Friend will stand at the Dispatch Box and tell her everything that she needs to know about that particular meeting.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
My hon. Friend is right: Cornwall has loads of critical minerals. They will be beneficial in driving not only the UK economy but great businesses and export opportunities. As we have said before, we want companies to scale and grow in the UK, to be headquartered and listed in the UK, and to provide great jobs in the UK. That is why I am working with my hon. Friend and his Cornish Labour colleagues, and with the industry and capital markets in the UK, to corral capital into Cornish critical minerals.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Since part of Grimsby falls in my constituency, I join my Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), in celebrating Great Grimsby Day. I recently attended a meeting with the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) and a group of potential investors in the steel industry, who I know have made approaches to the Secretary of State. Can he give me an assurance that all potential private sector investments in the industry will be given serious consideration?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The sudden shift in steel import policy has created uncertainty for firms that have invested heavily in expanding their operations based on previously stable trading conditions. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with affected businesses in Scotland, including Central Rebar in Alloa, and provide clarity to prevent further disruption and to ensure that companies vital to the Scottish industrial base are not placed at a competitive disadvantage?
Chris McDonald
The Government are incredibly concerned about the gradual erosion of UK domestic steel production compared with imports. I ask my hon. Friend to wait a very short time until the steel strategy is published, and after that he might like a further discussion with me.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
High streets are a key concern for us all in this House. On the Promenade in Cheltenham we have Cavendish House, which was a cherished retail centre for 200 years. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) remembers it. Now it is empty; Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct left and now we have a big, empty building owned by Canada Life. Does the Minister agree that the big pension and investment companies need to pay more respect to our high streets and bring forward planning applications to redevelop and regenerate as soon as they possibly can? We should not be left waiting for as long as we have been.
Department for Business and Trade
Chris McDonald Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
I thank everyone who has participated in today’s debate. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) for opening the debate, as well as for his work as Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, and the members of that Committee who have spoken in today and produced a number of reports in this Parliament. I have very much enjoyed reading those reports, and they have been drawn on extensively during this debate. Members have made some incredibly important and pertinent speeches, and in the time available, I will try to trot through some of the answers at pace. Forgive me in advance if I do not manage to respond to everyone: I am happy to write and fill in any detail that might be missing afterwards.
I will start with the overarching strategy of the Department and why it has produced these estimates. The Department has reset our programme of spend around our growth mission and our industrial strategy. Our major investments in key sectors, combined with efforts to attract private capital, will ensure that taxpayers’ money is used effectively. At the same time, we are ensuring that the right resources are going into delivering our small business plan, creating the right conditions for small businesses to grow. I will say more on that shortly, as I know that many Members are concerned about small businesses.
I also need to explain, as it was mentioned by several Members, the rationale behind the in-year budget increase. It is primarily for three activities—British Steel, the Post Office and the British Business Bank. There has been a £1.351 billion increase in the annual managed expenditure budget, recognising that additional provisions are needed for postmaster compensation. That covers funding for the capture redress scheme, and for redress to family members of postmasters impacted by Horizon. There is a £626 million increase in capital department expenditure limits, largely for two reserve claims. The first is £375 million of funding for the Department’s support for British Steel, and the second is £200 million for growth sector businesses via the British Business Bank, to help more firms to scale up and become home-grown success stories. The reserve claim will ensure that we do not unnecessarily restrict the bank.
The shadow Minister queried why the Department is coming back with estimates, as it also did last year. Fundamentally, that is partly built into the structure of the British Business Bank. In order to provide the bank with the level of in-year flexibility that it needs to work with fund managers and draw down investment in businesses, it is important that the bank is not restricted at the outset and that we do not overcompensate or undercompensate the bank. That is one of the primary reasons why the Department is an outlier among the estimates. It is actually a sign of a well-functioning Department and a very well-functioning element of the British Business Bank.
I turn to some of the specific items. Given the scale of the support for the steel industry, I shall start there. It was raised by the Chair of the Select Committee and many other Members. Our steel industry is of course strategically important as part of British heavy industry, supporting the UK’s industrial base, our construction sector and our national and economic security, as we heard in the earlier estimates debate on the Ministry of Defence. Transforming the steel sector is essential for securing a competitive, modern and sustainable industrial base, ensuring the UK can meet its long-term net zero commitments while maintaining critical domestic capability.
Our commitment to the sector is evident in the intervention we made in April last year at Scunthorpe to ensure uninterrupted steel production and avoid the permanent and disorderly closure of the UK’s last operating blast furnaces, the Queen Anne and the Queen Bess in Scunthorpe. Government officials are continuing to provide on-site support in Scunthorpe, ensuring uninterrupted domestic steel production and carefully monitoring the use of taxpayer funds.
Several hon. Members mentioned the steel strategy, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). We have a commitment to publish the strategy early in 2026. We had hoped to publish it before Christmas but we thought it best to publish it alongside the trade measures following changes in trade arrangements. We have worked carefully with the industry, UK Steel and the trade unions, and I hope that we will bring the proposals on trade and on the steel strategy to the House in a very short time.
I commend the management, the trade unions and the workforce at Scunthorpe on their diligence in this period. In difficult circumstances, they have achieved an excellent health and safety performance in stabilising operations. I also commend the commercial team at Scunthorpe for their high-speed rail order from Turkey. I think we can all take great pleasure in steel exports from the UK to Turkey. The shadow Minister was concerned that the Government did not have the know-how to support the industry. I can tell him that, having worked for 29 years in the industry myself, I am exercising very careful oversight of the production and operational activities of British Steel.
Several Members queried the numbers. To date, the Government have spent approximately £370 million on support for British Steel, covering items such as raw materials, salaries and unpaid bills. I understand the concern, but I note that that is still less than half the amount that the previous Government spent last time British Steel was in great difficulties. They simply flipped the business out to Greybull, a company that could not even run Rileys snooker halls without Rileys going into administration. This Government are developing a steel strategy, and planning to ensure that we maintain our ironmaking capacity at Scunthorpe as well.
More broadly, the Government are committed to providing up to £2.5 billon to support the UK steel industry. Funding and financing for steel companies is being delivered via the National Wealth Fund and direct support, including an additional £500 million grant for Tata Steel at Port Talbot and support for the official receiver’s sale process for Speciality Steel’s UK sites in Rotherham and Stocksbridge. Separately, the Government have committed an additional £420 million to new investment in Sheffield Forgemasters to expand capacity further as a direct result of the AUKUS submarine deal, bringing our total investment in Forgemasters to over £1.3 billion.
That was the first item; the second is the Post Office. I should begin by acknowledging the sub-postmasters who were impacted by the Horizon scandal, and, again, thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North and the members of his Committee for their support and their challenges on these issues. The Government welcome that scrutiny. My right hon. Friend said that the Committee would publish a new report in the coming days, and we stand ready to review and respond to it.
I can confirm that we have now paid redress to more than 11,300 postmasters and made redress payments of £1.2 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and the Chair of the Committee were concerned about Fujitsu, as am I. Fujitsu has accepted that it bears a moral responsibility for what has happened, and has expressed its willingness to contribute financially. Let me make it clear that Fujitsu will have to pay. As for the amount that it will have to pay, it is important for the inquiry to complete its work and publish all the volumes of its report so that we can establish the level of compensation.
In respect of small business support, a number of issues were raised in connection with energy efficiency and energy costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury mentioned the British industrial competitiveness scheme. There are a number of other kinds of support for energy efficiency in small businesses, but I have already committed myself, at the Dispatch Box, to looking further at what can be done in that regard. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) asked what we could do for Laura. I would direct Laura towards our plan for small businesses, which includes legislation on late payments, a business growth service and tailored support for high streets, which, hopefully, she will find helpful.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
We are seeing fantastic and significant investment and regeneration in our city centre in Derby, but it still bears the scars of 14 years of austerity and neglect. Will the Minister tell us a bit more about how the Government are helping businesses to grow?
Chris McDonald
Look out for our plan for high streets, which will be published shortly.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) mentioned the gas-intensive nature of ceramics businesses. I am aware of that, and am looking at it very carefully.
I hope that I have been able to trot through some of the main issues. I now want to leave some time for the Chair of the Committee to make some concluding remarks.
British Steel
Chris McDonald Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
The Government committed to updating Parliament on British Steel every four sitting weeks for the duration of the period of special measures being applied under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025.
The Government’s priority remains to maintain the safe operation of the blast furnaces at British Steel. Government officials are continuing to provide on-site support in Scunthorpe, ensuring uninterrupted domestic steel production and monitoring the use of taxpayer funds.
On funding, the position remains that all Government funding for British Steel will be drawn from existing budgets, within the spending envelope set out at spring statement 2025. To date, we have provided approximately £370 million for working capital, covering items such as raw materials and salaries. This will be reflected in the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for 2025-26.
We continue to work with Jingye to find a pragmatic, realistic solution for the future of the site. Once a solution is found, we will terminate the directions issued to British Steel under the Act and make a statement on the need to retain, or repeal, the legislation. As we have stated previously, our long-term aspiration for the UK steel sector will require co-investment with the private sector. Across the steel sector, private sector involvement enables modernisation and decarbonisation and safeguards taxpayers money.
Impact assessment relating to the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025
The impact assessment relating to the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 published on 22 January focuses on the rationale and impacts of the Act, namely providing optionality to address the risk that financially distressed owners could trigger unmanaged closures of major UK steel assets leading to irreversible loss of domestic steelmaking capability.
The IA can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/steel-industry-special-measures-bill-2025-final-impact-assessment
[HCWS1366]
Draft Energy-Intensive Industry Electricity Support Payments and Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Chris McDonald Excerpts(3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Energy-Intensive Industry Electricity Support Payments and Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 12 January 2026. I acknowledge the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which provided a helpful review of the regulations but did not draw them to the special attention of this House or the other place, and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has reported the regulations as an instrument of interest to Members.
The draft regulations aim to deliver one of the Government’s commitments in the modern industrial strategy: to increase electricity price support to energy-intensive industries through the British industry supercharger. Energy-intensive industries include foundational manufacturing sectors that are critical to the UK’s economic security and the delivery of the modern industrial strategy. They include steel, chemicals, cement, electrical components and gigafactories.
The British industry supercharger was introduced in 2024 to reduce the electricity price gap between Great Britain and comparable industrial countries in western Europe, such as France, Germany and the Netherlands. The supercharger is made up of three measures: the energy-intensive industries exemption scheme, which offers 100% exemption from contracts for difference, the feed-in tariff and the renewables obligation electricity policy levies; the capacity market exemption, which offers 100% exemption from the costs of funding the electricity capacity market; and the network charging compensation scheme, which provides 60% compensation on an energy-intensive industry’s electricity network costs.
While the supercharger package of measures has been successful, the Government recognise that there remains an electricity price gap between Great Britain and comparable industrial economies in Europe, which places British energy-intensive industries at a competitive disadvantage while increasing the risk of carbon leakage and the offshoring of vital manufacturing jobs and investment. That is why the Government’s modern industrial strategy included the commitment to increase from 60% to 90% the level of relief offered by the network charging compensation scheme. That will reduce electricity bills for currently supported energy-intensive industries by a further £7 to £10 per megawatt-hour, bringing the total reduction to £65 to £87 per megawatt-hour, and will deliver up to £420 million of electricity price support per annum.
The draft regulations aim to further close the electricity price gap, ensuring that British foundational manufacturing can thrive and grow. They will help to ensure that the 550 companies that currently benefit from the scheme will continue to attract new investment and preserve well-paid jobs and crucial supply chains across Britain’s manufacturing heartlands. The draft regulations will amend the Energy-Intensive Industry Electricity Support Payments and Levy Regulations 2024 to make provision for increasing the level of relief offered through the network charging compensation scheme.
In conclusion, the draft regulations will help to reduce electricity costs for the most energy and trade-intensive industries such as steel, chemicals, cement and battery manufacture. They will help to reduce the risk of carbon leakage by retaining critical manufacturing investment and jobs in Britain. I commend them to the Committee.
Chris McDonald
It is very pleasing to see a reasonable level of support across the Committee, not only for the draft regulations but for our energy-intensive industries. Perhaps I can answer the question from the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston while talking at length about ceramics, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central and I both enjoy.
A general review of eligibility for the supercharger is planned for this coming year, which would certainly be an opportunity to look at eligibility of other sectors. I have already said, and am happy to repeat to my hon. Friend, that I have tasked my officials with looking carefully at the case for the inclusion of the ceramics industry. Qualification for the supercharger system currently relates both to energy intensity and to the risk of export leakage. As my hon. Friend said, the ceramics industry is gas-intensive, which is possibly why it has previously fallen below the threshold, but of course we want the ceramics industry to electrify. The difference between gas and electricity costs is a concern for the industry.
My hon. Friend also asked about the funding of the scheme. To be clear, we do not expect any increase in non-domestic or domestic bills as a consequence of the change. This is partially a result of the change in the renewables obligation and feed-in tariff schemes, from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. Essentially, we propose to pay for the change by bearing down on costs in the system.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire talked very well about the challenges for small businesses. Over the past few months, as she will understand, I have laid out improvements in energy costs for energy-intensive industries, through the supercharger, and for manufacturing more generally, through the British industrial competitiveness scheme. Some of those manufacturing businesses will be small businesses, but I appreciate that she was talking about the small business sector more widely. I, too, am concerned about that, but I am leaving no stone unturned in looking at how we can help all businesses across the country with their energy costs. That takes me back to the general point that the shadow Minister made about the level of uncompetitive energy in the UK. Fundamentally, this policy is designed to provide a measure of support as a consequence.
I am grateful that the shadow Minister welcomes the draft regulations. He described energy-intensive industries as the backbone of our economy. I could not agree more. Having worked in the steel industry for a long time, it is so nice to hear such warm words, even though the Opposition are perhaps late converts. The former Prime Minister scrapped industrial strategy; he was not keen on it, although a previous Conservative Prime Minister was, which is nice. Maybe we have consensus on industrial policy now; that would be very pleasing to see.
The shadow Minister described the environment around energy as hostile. I thank him for laying out so clearly the failure of his Government’s energy policy. Ultimately, this is a result of our reliance on gas in the system. The Opposition might not be keen to acknowledge it, but not only are solar, onshore wind and offshore wind the cheapest forms of energy available to us, but they create demand for foundational industries and offer great jobs. We have outlined an increase of 400,000 jobs in clean energy industries—good jobs for people across the whole of the country. Of course, that home-grown energy offers energy security too.
Many Members across the House—not only those on the Government side, but Liberal Democrats—are content to bask in the warm glow of solar power, onshore wind and offshore wind. I appreciate that the Opposition are feeling a chill breeze up their right flank and are tacking across to the climate-denying policies of Reform, but that cannot be the basis on which the country’s energy policy is determined. We must focus instead on low-cost energy for consumers and industry, on energy security and on good jobs, and that is what renewable energy delivers. Through this mechanism, we will ensure that our energy-intensive industries continue to be competitive in Europe.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026
Chris McDonald Excerpts(3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026.
I am grateful to you, Sir Jeremy, and to the Committee for its consideration of the draft order, which was laid before Parliament on 13 January 2026. The UK ETS was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme contributing to the UK’s emissions reduction targets and net zero goal. The scheme was established to increase the climate ambition of the UK’s carbon pricing policy, while protecting the competitiveness of UK businesses.
The scheme is run by the UK ETS Authority, a joint body involving the UK Government and the devolved Governments. Under the scheme, a cap is set on the amount of certain greenhouse gases that may be emitted by the sectors it covers, and the cap is reduced over time so that total emissions must fall. Under the UK ETS, operators participating in the scheme are required to monitor, report on and surrender allowances in respect of their greenhouse gas emissions.
The scope of the UK ETS is being expanded to maritime activities as part of the Government’s strategy of decarbonising all sectors of the UK economy to meet our net zero target by 2050. The draft order is an effective lever to reduce emissions and delivers on a key commitment in the UK’s maritime decarbonisation strategy. We expect it to help to overcome key barriers to maritime decarbonisation by incentivising low-carbon fuels, fuel-efficient technologies and fuel-efficient operating practices.
The statutory instrument amends the legislation that gives effect to the UK ETS. It expands the scheme to cover carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide from domestic voyages and in-port activities in the UK. Effective from 1 July 2026, maritime operators are required to participate in the scheme and allowed to bid at auction for UK allowances. The instrument will apply to ships of 5,000 gross tonnage and above, but a small number of exemptions apply, such as for Government ships, including military and law enforcement ships, and ferries operating services to Scotland’s islands and peninsulas.
The provisions set out in the instrument require the maritime operator of a ship—either its registered owner or the company responsible for its compliance with the international safety management code—first to obtain an emissions monitoring plan in which it will document the processes used to ascertain their ships’ emissions. For each scheme year, maritime operators will be expected to monitor, independently verify and report their maritime emissions to the relevant regulator, and surrender an equivalent level of allowances.
The instrument also introduces the concept of surrender deductions, reducing by 50% the number of allowances for surrender in respect of voyages between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to deliver equivalence in carbon pricing on routes across the Irish sea. Operators will be assigned to a UK ETS regulator based on the location of their registered office or place of residence. This is the same approach as for aircraft operators. One emissions monitoring plan will cover all the ships for which the maritime operator is responsible, and emissions must be monitored using one of the four methods prescribed in the instrument.
Maritime operators will be required to report emissions from all ships for which they are responsible through an annual emissions report, which must be submitted to the regulator on or before 31 March in the year following the scheme year to which it relates. Maritime operators have an obligation to verify their annual emissions report. The verification must be carried out by an impartial and accredited verifier, independent from the maritime operator. If satisfied, the verifier will draft a verification report, which will be submitted to the regulator alongside the annual emissions report.
Maritime operators will also be required to surrender a level of allowances equivalent to their emissions by 30 April in the year following the scheme year. However, the instrument introduces the concept of double surrender, whereby the date by which allowances must be surrendered in relation to the first scheme year, 2026, is 30 April 2028 and not 30 April 2027, as would otherwise be the case.
These changes follow comprehensive engagement and consultation with stakeholders. The UK and devolved Governments carried out a consultation in 2022 on the development of the UK ETS, including whether to include maritime activities in the scheme. A second consultation ran between 28 November 2024 and 23 January 2025, seeking views on the details of how maritime would be incorporated in the UK ETS from 2026. The relevant responses to those consultations were summarised in the interim and main authority responses published in July and November 2025, respectively.
The expansion of the UK ETS to cover maritime activities will support its role as a fundamental pillar of the UK’s climate policy. It plays a key part in the Government’s strategy of decarbonising all sectors of the UK economy to meet our net zero target by 2050. It also delivers on a key commitment within our maritime decarbonisation strategy, and I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Chris McDonald
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I hope to be able to respond to them.
We heard, from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, the Opposition’s clear objections to the emissions trading scheme. We also heard them last week, in a statutory instrument debate about the emissions trading scheme and the future introduction of the carbon border adjustment mechanism. This is clearly a significant change in policy from the Opposition, as they line themselves up with the climate deniers in the hope that they might scrounge some votes back from Reform, but—[Interruption.] It absolutely is a desperate measure.
The shadow Minister talks about protection for industry. We discussed that extensively in this Committee Room last week. Of course, the carbon border adjustment mechanism is precisely there to protect British industry from unfair competition from imports from more polluting industries in countries without such regulations. The Opposition’s objections to the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which we heard in this room last week, actually put British industry on the block. I do wonder whether they have fully thought through their policy, because when the statutory instrument went to the Lords, their spokesperson was not clear about whether the Opposition opposed the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Perhaps the shadow Minister might want to say whether that is Opposition policy.
Chris McDonald
No, the shadow Minister does not. Well, perhaps he needs to think about it a bit longer.
The shadow Minister talked about the administrative burden placed on maritime companies, which is of course something of which the Government are very conscious. He mentioned some of the information that would need to be recorded, such as port of departure, fuel use and so on. I do not know when he last spoke to somebody who actually operates a vessel, but a lot of this information is routinely recorded. Perhaps his ignorance of maritime operations is second only to his ignorance of the United Kingdom.
Andrew Bowie
As somebody who served in the Royal Navy for four years after I left school, I have full awareness of maritime operations and of the importance of our United Kingdom. I was talking about the gross unfairness of this legislation and the impact it is having on some communities around this kingdom, whether on the Isle of Wight or in Northern Ireland. The Minister has the audacity to claim that CBAM is protecting British industry, when his Government’s policies are doing more to undermine British industry than any policy of any Government in recent history. The deindustrialisation we are seeing in this country is something of which his party, which still laughably calls itself the Labour party, should be utterly ashamed. I ask him to withdraw his remark about the ignorance of maritime affairs.
Chris McDonald
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his service in the Royal Navy, and I am happy to withdraw that remark. Perhaps there was an oversight on his part in relation to that particular issue. I absolutely do withdraw that remark.
On the shadow Minister’s comment about the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man is a Crown dependency, as I am sure he knows, so it is not covered by the scheme. He mentioned the Isles of Scilly. The vessels to the Isles of Scilly are not covered by the scheme either, because they are below 5,000 gross tonnage.
The shadow Minister also mentioned the Isle of Wight, and I want to respond to the comments from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. I looked very carefully at the issues around the Isle of Wight before we tabled this statutory instrument, because those were a significant concern for me as well, and I am happy to offer some additional information now. I am grateful to my colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), who requested a meeting with me before this statutory instrument was laid. I was happy to have that conversation with him, and I offer that courtesy to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East as well, if he would like to have such a meeting after this debate.
Perhaps I can in some way put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest. First, regarding the situation on the Isle of Wight versus the ferry operators in Scotland, one of the key considerations for us was that the population on the islands in Scotland is considerably lower than that of the Isle of Wight. There is also no competition generally between the ferry operators, but there are there are a number of routes operating to the Isle of Wight, as the hon. Gentleman will know very well. The scheme will affect only two vessels, from one operator, on the Isle of Wight: one is a diesel vessel and one is a hybrid vessel. Clearly, the impact of the scheme will be felt more on the diesel vessel than the hybrid vessel, and that is because of the 5,000 gross tonnage limit. I am sure that I am not telling the hon. Gentleman anything that he does not know, but I want to be clear that we have thought very carefully about this.
The hon. Gentleman and a number of Members mentioned the opportunity for decarbonisation. In my opening remarks, I mentioned a number of ways that that could be done, including more fuel-efficient operating practices and various other things. We have set aside £448 million of Government funding to support that, which was announced previously. If the hon. Gentleman would like to meet with me to go through more of that in detail and represent the views of his constituents, I would be happy to do that.
Joe Robertson
I welcome the offer to meet, and I wish to take the Minister up on it. As he will know, the hybrid vessel he refers to that travels across the Solent has electric capability, but it cannot be used because there is no grid capacity at Portsmouth. The Solent is one of the busiest shipping areas in Europe and the vast majority of pollution will be from large container ships going in and out of Southampton—and, of course, the Royal Navy operates out of Portsmouth. Putting any cost on a boat travelling to the Isle of Wight to allow to people to go to and from home fails to meet any sort of reasonableness test, but I thank the Minister for the offer of a meeting.
Chris McDonald
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Perhaps we can go through some of the assessments of the impact of cost inflation in more detail when we meet. Our modelling shows that that could largely be eaten up by normal inflation and normal operating practices, but there are decisions there for the operators to take into account. The hon. Gentleman made some pertinent points about the operators, and we can discuss those in more detail. He also mentioned international shipping through the Solent. Clearly, international shipping is not covered currently by this measure, but it is covered in the EU ETS.
Finally, I come to the points raised by the right hon. Member for East Antrim and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim might be surprised to know that there are actually quite a number of things on which we agree, and one of them, for certain, is that the United Kingdom must be the United Kingdom of equals. I am quite clear about that.
I wanted to clear up a couple of points about the situation with Northern Ireland. The 50% reduction that applies to Northern Ireland is there to create parity between vessels that operate between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and those that operate between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. If we had not offered the 50% reduction, Northern Ireland would be disadvantaged in that way, and I want to be clear about why that is.
Jim Allister
The Minister is telling the Committee that parity with the Republic of Ireland is more important to him than parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. Really?
Chris McDonald
That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that it was important to us that Northern Ireland was not in any way disadvantaged, which is why the 50% reduction was offered. The hon. and learned Member mentioned Rathlin island in his constituency; I remind him of the 5,000 gross tonnage limit and how that applies.
The hon. and learned Member, the right hon. Member for East Antrim and the shadow Minister all made a general point about the cost associated with the changes. There is a cost to not tackling climate change. If operators of vessels were spilling oil into the Solent or the Irish sea, then I am quite sure that the hon. and right hon. Members’ constituents would be clamouring for the Government to introduce regulations to do something about it. The fact that this pollution is not observable to the naked eye does not make it any less important to tackle it. These environmental regulations—and the Government’s policy on net zero—are about tackling that pollution and providing a stable and predictable regime so that industry can invest.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Will the Minister clarify what the Northern Ireland Office’s submission in the write-round said about the impact of the measure on Northern Ireland, or give a sense of those discussions? Baroness Foster runs Intertrade UK, a committee that was designed during the Windsor framework negotiations to look at the very issue of trade. Has he had conversations with Baroness Foster? Having listened to Northern Ireland colleagues, will he look again at how this will impact the Union? On top of the Windsor framework—which I would argue was the best deal we could get—this measure is an additional burden.
Chris McDonald
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that this measure will need the support of the Governments of all four parts of the United Kingdom.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Northern Ireland is and will be disadvantaged if we proceed down this track. What engagement has the Minister had with the individuals concerned, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon outlined? Will he extend the invitation he gave to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East to the Members for Northern Ireland who feel very deeply about this and are very aggrieved, to discuss the real impact—not just the impact in his brief?
Chris McDonald
Yes, I am very happy to extend that invitation for a further meeting with any Members of the House who wish to discuss the matter. Of course, there has been extensive consultation on this statutory instrument.
Chris McDonald
I have given way multiple times, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate. I think it is time I brought the debate to a close.
These changes have the support of all four Governments of the United Kingdom, and consensus in advancing carbon pricing policy to include domestic maritime is key to delivering our decarbonisation goals and driving green investment across the United Kingdom. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris McDonald Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
The Government recognise the challenge of high industrial energy costs. From April we will raise the discount on electricity network charges from 60% to 90% under the network charging compensation scheme, supporting around 550 electricity-intensive businesses. This year we also plan to review eligibility for the British industry supercharger and the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme. From 2027 the British industrial competitiveness scheme will cut electricity costs by around £35 to £40 per MWh for around 7,000 manufacturing businesses.
Nick Smith
Under the last Conservative Government we had soaring energy costs and the highest industrial energy bills in Europe. Now, under Labour, manufacturers, including those in Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, have seen costly levies taken out. Will the Minister please outline what else the Government can do to bring energy bills down further for UK industry?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for championing the businesses in his constituency. One such business, GS Yuasa Battery Manufacturing in Gwent, is receiving support from the supercharger, exempting it from several renewables levies and electricity network usage costs. This is all part of the Government’s clean energy superpower mission, which will cut costs, boost energy security and accelerate grid connections.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I have a fantastic Yorkshire brick company in my constituency. Unfortunately it had to go into administration, but it was rescued. As welcome as the supercharger scheme is, the problem was that the company did not qualify because it did not meet the business level test, so it did not get any Government support. Can the Government engage directly with ceramics manufacturers, which are huge users of electricity, gas and various other products, because if we export products to be made elsewhere, the carbon footprint is often much bigger than if we had made them locally?
Chris McDonald
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I share his concerns about the ceramics industry. He is quite right that many ceramics companies failed to qualify for the supercharger. There will be a review of the supercharger this year, and I have asked officials to look very carefully at the potential to include ceramics companies in it. I discussed that with the ceramics industry at an event in Parliament this week, which the right hon. Member attended—as, I think, did the Yorkshire brick company that he mentioned. I can also inform him that I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will meet ceramics industries in the near future.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
The Department is driving economic growth by delivering the long-term certainty that businesses need and by supporting the growth of businesses across the UK, including in Lancashire, where the Lancashire business growth hub is ensuring that businesses in Morecambe and Lunesdale have the advice to grow, to scale up and to succeed.
Lizzi Collinge
In my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale, we have the Electech innovation cluster, which is a growing group of small and medium-sized firms, many of which supply specialist components into the clean energy sector, particularly nuclear, and into the vital defence sector. The Minister would be welcome to visit them. How is the Department supporting SMEs, such as those in the Electech innovation cluster, and how will they benefit from the Government’s investment in industry?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for her work in championing small businesses in her constituency, particularly the Electech cluster, where businesses such as Teleplan Forsberg, Like Technologies and Mazuma are working in the clean energy sector. Our clean energy industry sector plan focuses on capitalising on the strengths of these businesses and doubling investment levels across our frontier industries to more than £30 billion a year by 2035. That will directly support businesses in that cluster. I would of course be delighted to come and visit.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
I thank my hon. Friend for the work she is doing to highlight the north-east’s role as a key part of our life sciences and pharmaceutical industries. She mentions Organon in her constituency. Its Cramlington site was singled out by the leadership of that business at the J. P. Morgan healthcare conference in San Francisco recently. In two weeks’ time, I will be opening Fujifilm’s biotechnology factory in Billingham in my own constituency—a £400 million investment in north-east biosciences. Our life sciences sector plan is backing the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry with £2 billion of investment and our UK-US deal is delivering zero-tariff access for UK pharmaceutical exports.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
When will the Government announce the results of their British industrial competitiveness scheme consultation, and provide the fabulous manufacturing industry in my constituency with some much-needed help towards its energy costs?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the British industrial competitiveness scheme will provide a significant discount to up to 7,000 manufacturing businesses of up to 25% of their energy costs. It will certainly help manufacturing businesses in his constituency and across the whole UK. I encourage businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to contribute to the consultation, the results of which we will announce in due course.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Recently I met with employees and union reps from SYNLAB, a thriving pathology laboratory in Abergavenny. It has been taken over, and now more than 30 jobs are at risk, meaning that these highly skilled opportunities in science, technology, engineering and maths could move out of my constituency. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), for meeting me earlier this week, but would she meet with colleagues in the Welsh Government and myself to discuss how we ensure that we keep these kinds of high-tech jobs in Wales, as it should not just be big cities that benefit from these STEM opportunities?
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for Industry for his engagement with Ceramics UK this week, meeting the organisation and ceramics companies from across Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, the west midlands and further afield. He will have heard from them about the importance of getting ceramics firms into the super- charger scheme. I was pleased to hear what he said about trying to extend eligibility, so could he give us an idea of when we might hear some positive news on that front?
Chris McDonald
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for so clearly representing the importance of the ceramics firms in his constituency. I heard the message loud and clear from the ceramics industry this week about the impact of energy costs and, as I mentioned earlier, in the review of the supercharger scheme, I have asked my officials to look carefully at the opportunities for including the ceramics sector.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Ajax armoured vehicle programme is currently under threat, but work is due to be completed at the Merthyr Tydfil factory next summer. Could the Minister confirm whether there are any conversations through the UK Defence and Security Exports office around securing an export package for the Ajax vehicle and guaranteeing work at the factory going forwards?
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I return again to the steel industry, and thank the steel Minister for the meeting we held a few weeks ago. I was contacted by a couple of employers in Scunthorpe last week who expressed concern about recent reports of publicly funded contracts using foreign-produced steel. Could the Minister give an assurance that British-produced steel will take priority in such cases?
Chris McDonald
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his positive and constructive engagement on this issue. I do understand the concerns of the steelworkers in Scunthorpe. I know precisely the projects he is referring to; they were not procured under public procurement rules, and the developers and tier 1 contractors involved have followed their own rules and commitments. However, it is the case that this Government want to see more British steel used in both public and other projects around the country, which is a matter both for developing steel capability and, potentially, for reviewing our procurement rules.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final question, I call David Mundell.