Draft Energy-Intensive Industry Electricity Support Payments and Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Chris McDonald Excerpts(1 day, 17 hours 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(2 days, 17 hours 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(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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.
Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026
Chris McDonald Excerpts(1 week, 2 days 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) Order 2026.
I am grateful to you, Sir Desmond, and to the Committee for their consideration. The draft order was laid before the House on 16 December 2025.
The UK emissions trading scheme, 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 is run by the UK ETS authority, a joint body comprising the UK Government and the devolved Governments. Our aim is to be predictable and responsible guardians of the scheme and its markets.
Under the UK ETS, operators are required to monitor, report on and surrender allowances in respect of their greenhouse gas emissions. While most allowances are purchased at regularly held auctions, operators in certain sectors at risk of carbon leakage are given a number of allowances for free, referred to as free allocations. Free allocations reduce exposure to the carbon price for those sectors at risk of carbon leakage and reduce the risk that decarbonisation efforts could be undermined by production, and the associated emissions, moving to other countries.
Under the UK ETS, an operator is the person or company that has control over an installation. Installations are stationary units at which regulated activities take place. Sub-installations represent operations carried out at an installation in respect of which operators that receive free allocations are required to report activity levels for the purposes of the UK ETS.
We have brought forward this draft statutory instrument to enable important changes and improvements to the scheme. The first change that the instrument makes is to enable operators of installations to be able to notify their regulator that they wish to have their activity data for the 2020 scheme year, or 2020 and 2021 scheme years, excluded from the calculation of their historical activity level for the 2027-to-2030 free allocation period. That is in recognition of the fact that production levels may have been impacted during the covid-19 pandemic. Such operators will be able to notify their regulator during the second stage of the 2027-to-2030 free allocation application, which runs from 1 April 2026 to 30 June 2026, that they wish to have their activity data for 2020, or 2020 and 2021, excluded.
Legal change is needed to the free allocation regulation, because existing legislation would require regulators to calculate historical activity levels using activity data from all five years of the baseline period, or 2019 to 2023. If amendments are not made, there will be no legal basis for regulators to exclude 2020, or 2020 and 2021, data from the historical activity level calculation for any applicant. Using activity data for those years could result in historical activity levels that do not reflect normal activity, meaning that operators would receive fewer free allocations than they would otherwise be entitled to receive.
The second change that the draft instrument makes is gradually to phase out free allocation for sectors covered by the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, or UK CBAM, starting over the 2027-to-2030 allocation period. That phase-out will be implemented through applying a UK CBAM reduction factor to the calculation of free allocation and will apply at sub-installation level. To do that, operators will be required to report which of their sub-installations serve the production of goods within the UK CBAM, which will enable regulators to apply the UK CBAM reduction factor to the relevant sub-installations. Legal change is needed as operators only classify their sub-installations by a specific benchmark and the corresponding carbon leakage status of that sub-installation. The instrument also requires operators to classify each sub-installation as relevant or not to UK CBAM.
Benchmarks are the efficiency standards used to calculate each installation’s free allocation entitlement. Installations closer to their benchmark have a higher proportion of emissions covered by free allocation, rewarding more efficient installations and incentivising decarbonisation. The third change that the instrument makes is to use current benchmarks for the purpose of calculating free allocation for stationary installations for the 2027 scheme year. The instrument also provides for the ability to update the benchmark values used to calculate free allocation for the years 2028, 2029 and 2030 of the 2027-to-2030 allocation period. Maintaining current benchmarks for the 2027 year will allow time for industrial participants to adjust to the changes.
Legal change is needed to the free allocation regulation because, under existing legislation, there is no provision to update benchmarks during an allocation period. The in-principle intent is to use the updated EU ETS phase 4 benchmarks in the 2028, 2029 and 2030 scheme years. That will be decided once the EU benchmark values are available, and subject to assessment of the impact.
Installations that permanently cease to operate are required to report on their activity in the final year of operation so that free allocation can be recalculated to reflect the cessation of activity. The amendment clarifies that operators are required to report on the activity levels of a sub-installation, whether that is due to permanent cessation, as is currently provided for, or the surrender or revocation of the operator’s permit.
The intended changes follow comprehensive engagement and consultation with stakeholders. The UK and devolved Governments carried out consultations that covered the provisions included in the statutory instrument. The free allocation review consultation ran from 18 December 2023 to 11 March 2024, seeking views on proposals to alter the free allocation methodology for the UK ETS stationary sectors to better target those most at risk of carbon leakage and ensure that free allocations are fairly distributed.
The free allocation review carbon leakage consultation ran between 16 December 2024 and 10 March 2025. It sought views on a draft UK-focused carbon leakage list, compiled by applying UK data to the existing carbon leakage list, as well as the trajectory for phasing out free allocations for sectors that will be covered by the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism. The relevant responses to those consultations were summarised in the authority’s response.
The changes in the draft order will deliver on commitments made by the UK ETS authority, improve the fairness of the scheme and increase certainty for both regulators and operators. They will ensure that free allocation continues to provide meaningful support to UK industry while maintaining the incentive to decarbonise and rewarding efficient installations. The amendments to the UK ETS will support its role as a key pillar of the UK’s climate policy. They demonstrate that we will take action to improve the scheme where necessary. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Chris McDonald
I thank everyone for their contributions to the debate, which was considerably more fulsome and energised than is usual for a 4.30 pm Committee. I am incredibly grateful, because Members in all parts of the Committee made a number of points, giving me the opportunity to clarify some details of the workings of the scheme.
The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey, said that it was a very dense report with a lot of governmentitis. I know that she understands the details of this subject well, because she is the former Secretary of State, but I appreciate that it is technical, and it behoves all of us to try to explain as clearly as possible what the draft order means.
I will start by addressing some of the specific points in the draft order and then talk a bit more generally about some of the points that Members have raised. I appreciate the concerns on both sides of the House about the impact on industry and the risk, when we are decarbonising industry, of deindustrialisation. I know that this concern is sincerely felt by everybody in this room, even if we might differ at times on what we think the best approach is. That is why we have been so careful to consult industry on these measures, as I outlined in the long catalogue of dates in my opening speech. We have consulted carefully with industry and made sure we have listened to what they have said.
Some of the issues here run quite broadly around industrial competitiveness. Possibly one of the main points to recognise is that it is important through the whole decarbonisation process that industry manages to maintain access to its key markets, and clearly one of the key markets is the EU. That is where we come to the discussion about linking the EU ETS and the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism with the EU to enable our UK industries to continue to trade there. Negotiations with the EU started in November, but I want to be clear that they will only conclude in this way if it is in the UK interest to do that. We will continue to consult with UK industry on that matter too.
In relation to points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, the ceramics industry made three specific requests during the consultation. We managed to adopt requests to include ceramics on the carbon leakage list, no tiering of free allocations, and greater engagement with the ceramics sector, which is why we set up the UK ETS working group. My hon. Friend asked me specifically if we could reallocate free allocations from other sectors to ceramics. That is not possible within the current rules, but that does not mean that I am not aware of the issues surrounding the ceramics sector. We can use the UK ETS group to look at ETS issues, but we should also look more broadly at the concerns of the ceramics sector. I look forward to starting that conversation over dinner with my hon. Friend and the ceramics industry later this evening.
On the question of power and the impact of the instrument on energy bills, the important point is that the ETS applies to power that is produced from fossil fuels, not renewable energy. This Government’s policy is to pursue our clean power mission by 2030, which involves investing in the cheapest forms of power available, in onshore and offshore wind, solar power and nuclear energy. The purpose of the ETS is to incentivise that. The carbon price incentivises investment; it provides the incentive in power and in industry to invest in new green technologies.
Claire Coutinho
Originally, the choice was between coal and gas, but there is no coal in the system anymore; there is only gas. Even in the Minister’s clean power plans, gas is the dispatchable power in the system—there is no other choice; nothing else will keep the lights on when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. Even in his plans, gas will set the price 50% of the time. He is needlessly imposing a tax that inflates that price of gas to the consumer when there is no other choice available. Will he at least come up with a forecast for what this will mean for energy bills and consumers in this country, considering that they do not have another choice, even in the Minister’s plans, apart from using gas power?
Chris McDonald
I think what the shadow Secretary of State has outlined is exactly the success of this policy—it has driven coal out of the system in favour of cheaper power. That is exactly the point of the ETS and the industrial investment. Of course, as we said, we are pursuing our clean power mission for energy security and to lower energy bills, as well as to ensure that we also have green energy.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Can the Minister explain why his impact assessment says opposite things on the same page? In respect of the £92 million direct net cost to business, on the one hand, it says:
“our working assumption is that all costs are incurred to business, with no indirect impacts to households.”
In the very next paragraph, it says:
“we estimate that cost-pass through for most sectors could feasibly be at 80-90%”.
Both those things cannot be true, can they?
Chris McDonald
What can be true is that there are both costs and savings for industry, particularly the savings for industry associated with being a member of the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, which will come into force in 12 months. If we link the UK and the EU ETS, that will enable UK industry to trade freely within the EU, as it has done in the past.
Chris McDonald
No, no—I have dealt with that.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim asked me about the issue in Northern Ireland, which is a separate electricity zone. Electricity generators in Northern Ireland have not historically received a free allocation, and in future, the free allocation rules on electricity generation will apply in the same way for the UK and EU operators, assuming that there is linkage.
I will return to the point about industry that was made by the shadow Secretary of State, among others. Clearly, the drive is to incentivise investment in industry, and that is precisely what the policy does; that is precisely the mechanism of the carbon price. It is a fallacy to assume that the investment in industry will result in less efficient or more expensive industrial products. That is certainly not the case for the steel industry, where investing in green technology results in lower production costs. The Government’s policy framework gives industrial companies a clear investment framework.
Claire Coutinho
I appreciate the Minister’s graciousness in understanding our concern for industry. His priority is decarbonisation, but I am sure he will understand the very real risk that it is not the case that the UK is decarbonising, because those industries are not remaining in the UK and cutting their emissions; instead, UK businesses in those industries are going abroad, often to countries that have more polluting regimes than the UK—which has some of the cleanest electricity of anywhere in the world—including places that are still powered by coal. Rather than reducing global carbon emissions, we will actually increase emissions by moving our businesses from the UK to countries that have more polluting regimes. That will mean fewer jobs in Britain for more carbon in the atmosphere. Do the Government plan to monitor whether that is happening, and if it is, will the Minister change course? Surely he would agree that such a scenario would not count as decarbonising well; in fact, it would not be decarbonising the planet at all.
Chris McDonald
The shadow Secretary of State and I are clearly both concerned about the same thing. I know that that concern is shared across the House, but deindustrialisation and decarbonisation need not be in competition. Sadly, under the previous Government, there was a 30% reduction in UK cement production, a nearly 50% reduction in automotive production and a 30% reduction in chemicals production. That is why, alongside the ETS policy, we published our industrial strategy; it is why I introduced the British industrial competitiveness scheme to reduce energy costs for 7,000 manufacturing businesses; and it is why we increased the supercharger to 90% for energy intensive industries.
Clearly, we recognise that energy costs have been too high in the UK for industrial businesses as well as consumers. That is primarily a result of the policy of the previous Government to leave us at the mercy of petrostates and fossil fuel dictators, on the rollercoaster of fossil fuel prices. The shadow Secretary of State said that my priority is decarbonisation. I happen to be in a place where there is a happy coincidence between energy security, decarbonisation and the lowest cost of energy. That is recognised by industry, and that is why it is Government policy.
Chris McDonald
I feel I have detained the Committee for too long, so if the right hon. Member will excuse me, it would be a good idea to draw the debate—and we have had a good debate—to a close.
The statutory instrument will give certainty to the industry around benchmarks and free allocations. The free allocations reduction is specifically for those sectors that are part of the carbon border adjustment mechanism, so some other sectors will not be affected. The legislation needs to be in place for applicants to apply for their free allocations for the period to April 2026. The statutory instrument will implement the proposed improvements to the scheme.
Chris McDonald
These changes have the support of the four Governments of the UK. That consensus on advancing carbon pricing policy adds to the strength of the UK ETS. I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put.
Ineos Chemicals: Grangemouth
Chris McDonald Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks 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 have agreed a landmark partnership with Ineos to secure the strategically important ethylene cracker in Grangemouth, Scotland. This agreement ensures that the future of this vital site is protected and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to support workers and their communities in Scotland and across the rest of the UK.
The plant, like many across Europe, has faced challenging market conditions. Three quarters of the plant’s output is used domestically by our downstream manufacturing sectors. This includes supporting our industrial strategy growth sectors who depend on ethylene supply, and downstream uses ranging from advanced polymers for defence and medical grade plastics in our life science sectors, to advanced manufacturing sectors such as automotive. The Grangemouth plant is crucially important to our critical national infrastructure given the interconnected assets operated by Ineos—the ethylene pipeline system and the Forties pipeline system. This is why we have acted decisively and stepped in to ensure that it is secured.
The agreement consists of more than £120 million in UK Government support and at least £30 million of investment from Ineos. This package will save jobs, reduce emissions and increase productivity, helping to secure the site’s continued operations and long-term competitiveness. It will reinforce the hundreds of millions of pounds of investment that Ineos has already made over the last few years in maintaining operations at the site. We are also creating the conditions for Grangemouth’s long-term future. Through Project Willow, up to £200 million from the National Wealth Fund will support new jobs and projects subject to meeting usual assessment criteria.
This agreement strengthens the resilience of our foundational sectors and their supply chains within the UK, which underpins our industrial strategy. It will ensure that the site remains operational for the foreseeable future and continues to support the commercial strength of the Grangemouth cluster.
Funding for this intervention will be covered by existing budgets that have been agreed as a part of the departmental spending review settlements. The Government set a very high bar for interventions of this kind. This includes assessing the viability of the business, the economic and social impacts of potential public support, and the contributions of the private sector—including shareholders. Where the Government do intervene, they sets clear, strict conditions on how the money is used. We are taking bold action today to support this site, recognising its strategic importance.
We are also backing the wider chemicals sector through the industrial strategy with targeted support to bring down energy costs, including through the British industrial competitiveness scheme—which will slash costs for businesses in sectors including chemicals by up to 25%—and the British industrial supercharger, which will save Britain’s most energy-intensive firms money on their electricity costs.
[HCWS1190]
INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth
Chris McDonald Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks 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)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the agreement the Government have secured to protect vital chemical production and hundreds of jobs at the INEOS ethylene cracker in Grangemouth.
Three quarters of Grangemouth’s ethylene production is consumed domestically by our key industries, and the plant is strategically important for those industries and for UK supply chains more broadly. Its ethylene is essential for critical national infrastructure, including medical-grade plastics used in the health service, and its chemical supply chains are used for water treatment. These materials are also vital to many of our industrial strategy priority sectors, including advanced manufacturing, life sciences and defence, which all depend on a ready supply of them. The plant also links to the Forties pipeline system, which is key for transporting our North sea oil and gas to onshore infrastructure.
Despite the site’s strategic importance, we know that INEOS has faced a number of significant challenges that have had a severe impact on trading. The site, like many chemical complexes in the UK and the EU, has faced the risk of closure. Given the national importance of the plant and its unique contribution to the UK economy, the Government are clear that closure is not an outcome we are willing to accept. That is why I can confirm to the House today that we are stepping in and providing a support package to INEOS of over £120 million, which forms part of a wider £150 million investment with INEOS to help to ensure the site remains commercially viable and sustainable in the long term.
This support package comprises a grant and a Government-backed loan to protect 500 jobs in Grangemouth and many hundreds more within critical supply chains. As part of the agreement, Ineos will continue operations and will invest at least £30 million into the site, on top of the hundreds of millions it has already invested in recent years. The agreement will therefore protect jobs and safeguard taxpayers’ money.
The Government set a very high bar for interventions of this kind. We assess the viability of the business, the economic and social impacts of our investments, and the contributions of the private sector, including shareholders. Where we do intervene, we set clear and strict conditions on how those investments are used. In this case, our funding will secure ongoing operations. It will improve the site’s energy efficiency, decrease carbon emissions and increase productivity. Funding for this support will be covered by existing budgets that have been agreed as part of the departmental spending review settlements.
Interventions of this kind are rare, but when workers’ livelihoods and our strategic interests are at risk, a Labour Government will never hesitate to take action to protect this nation’s assets and economic security. We will work with businesses to build a secure, prosperous future for our industrial heartlands and for the whole of the UK. We are taking bold action today to ensure that the chemicals sector in this country remains strong for the workers and communities who have depended on it for generations. We are also ensuring that this sector can play its part in making the UK a clean energy superpower by the end of the decade. The chemicals sector plays a fundamental role in the supply of parts for wind turbines, for carbon capture and storage, and for our nuclear powerplants. We cannot afford to see those domestic supply chains disrupted, and we will not.
That is why, beyond this agreement, we will improve the business environment for British industries, including our chemicals sector. The industrial strategy is one of the ways we are doing that. Our gas prices remain competitive in Europe, but we are tackling long-standing problems with our high electricity prices. We have already pledged to increase the discount on electricity network charges from 60% to 90% for businesses in sectors such as steel, cement and chemicals. Some 550 of our most energy-intensive businesses will save up to £420 million a year on their electricity bills from next April thanks to that one change alone. Our new British industrial competitiveness scheme will reduce electricity costs for over 7,000 eligible businesses, including chemicals. We want to save them up to £40 per megawatt-hour, or 25%, from April 2027.
Supporting a skilled workforce is also at the heart of the industrial strategy. We are providing an additional £1.2 billion of investment in the skills system by 2028-29. That is because we recognise that a strong economy must rest on strong foundations. That includes our defence capability, energy security and chemicals sector. I say that because hon. Members will know that Ineos is not the only business, and Grangemouth is not the only site, to have experienced challenges over the past few years. That is why we have a vision for Grangemouth’s long-term future that is energy efficient and sustainable.
The agreement we have announced today shows that we will forge the right partnerships between industry, the UK Government and the Scottish Government to make it a reality. As part of those efforts, up to £200 million of investment from our national wealth fund will support new opportunities in Grangemouth. Several projects are already under active consideration. Backed by funding announced by the Chancellor at the Budget, the Scottish company MiAlgae has announced that it will deliver a new biotech project at the site, creating 400 well-paid green jobs.
To support workers at the nearby ExxonMobil Mossmorran plant, which will close early next year, the UK Government and the Scottish Government, alongside Fife council, are setting up a dedicated taskforce. It will ensure that employees affected by that closure will be afforded every chance of securing valuable employment. As part of the agreement being announced today, Ineos Grangemouth has committed to giving those impacted workers a guaranteed interview for available roles at its site. The Grangemouth training guarantee will also be expanded to those employees who provided shared services for the refinery, ensuring that they have the skills and qualifications they need to succeed in the local labour market.
All those measures complement the efforts being undertaken as part of the Grangemouth just transition. That is important, because the agreement we have announced today is not just about supporting a single site or a single company; it is about securing a stable industrial pipeline now and for many years to come. It is about having a clean break from the managed decline of the past and delivering the decade of national renewal that we promised for Grangemouth and for the whole UK. For those reasons, I commend this statement to the House.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement. The steps announced today by the Government to secure the ethylene plant at Grangemouth are welcome news, especially for the workers at the site who can now look forward to the new year, assured that their jobs will remain at the strategically vital site—and Grangemouth is vital, as the UK’s last plant producing ethylene, a key ingredient in plastics used in advanced manufacturing and the automotive and aerospace sectors. To have lost domestic production capacity for such a core product would have been unconscionable.
However, this move, welcome as it is, demonstrates just how exposed sites such as Grangemouth have become under this Government. This Government’s policies are leading to the deindustrialisation of this country, with unemployment rates soaring and the economy shrinking as a result. From potteries in Stoke to the Prax Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire and, most obviously and glaringly, our oil and gas industry in the North sea, this Government are not just overseeing but engineering the decline of energy-intensive industries in this country.
Of course, I am genuinely glad that 500 jobs at Grangemouth will be protected, but that will be cold comfort for the thousands of workers in and around the wider oil and gas industry who have already lost their jobs, or those who will spend Christmas next week not knowing whether they will have a job next year because of Labour party policy. Last week it was Harbour Energy, and before that it was the Port of Aberdeen, Apache and Petrofac. TotalEnergies has had to merge with NEO NEXT Energy to operate, while Shell has merged with Equinor.
Those businesses all say the same thing: the exorbitant taxation regime, increased and extended until 2030, is driving away investment. Couple that with the utterly astronomical cost of energy here in the UK, pushed ever higher by unnecessary green levies and carbon taxes, and it is no surprise that, in his response to today’s announcement, Sir Jim Ratcliffe said that
“high energy costs and punitive carbon”
taxes were
“driving industry out of the UK at an alarming rate. If politicians want jobs, investment and energy security, then they must create a competitive environment.”
Week after week, more jobs in the sector are lost and critical national assets shut up shop as a direct consequence of policy decisions made by this Government. Since Labour stepped into office, more than 15,000 manufacturing and industry jobs have been lost—that is the scale of the crisis we are dealing with.
Great Britain has a proud manufacturing legacy, but current Government policy towards energy is squandering that legacy, damaging Scottish jobs, and damaging an important national asset.
“There are 200,000 jobs in the UK associated with oil and gas, and they are all at risk unless the government changes course.”
Those are not my words, Madam Deputy Speaker, but those of the chairman of Ineos at Grangemouth.
Today’s announcement is timely, however, as tomorrow I will be visiting Mossmorran to meet the team following the news that the polyethylene plant there will be closing. ExxonMobil’s chairman there has explained that he does not have two of the keys needed for success because of Government policy. He said:
“We’ve had windfall taxes, we’ve had a ban on production licences—I need cheap sources of abundant ethane, and I do not have them, because the North Sea—because of Government policy—is declining rapidly…we paid £20 million last year in CO2 taxes, that will double in the next four or five years.”
What is shocking, though, is that for some inexplicable reason the Secretary of State for Scotland chose today to attack ExxonMobil when explaining why it was not receiving the same support as Grangemouth, saying that the management
“weren’t able to give us a pathway to profitability.”
Of course they cannot do that—at every turn this Government are putting up hurdles, shutting down the North sea and taxing these businesses until they burst. Honestly, this Government just do not get it. They are not listening.
Today’s announcement does not even scratch the surface when it comes to rectifying the damage and pain that this Government have inflicted on industry in this country. Given that this is the second time this Government have launched an unprovoked attack on a leading investor in the United Kingdom, does the Minister want me to pass on an apology from the Government when I visit Mossmorran tomorrow?
Today’s announcement is welcome, but this Government could do so much more. We should scrap the energy profits levy and remove the punitive carbon taxes—we are not getting an exemption to the EU emissions trading scheme anyway, according to the EU Commission. We should incentivise, not punish. A Conservative Government will do all this and more when we return to office in three years’ time—unfortunately, those are three years I do not think British industry has.
Chris McDonald
I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman sincerely for welcoming the support for Grangemouth—it really must be the season of good will. On this occasion, I can assure him that he is correct: this is the last ethylene plant, so we can agree on that this time.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the business environment for the chemicals industry. I thought I had set that out reasonably well in my statement, but perhaps not. I shall just say a bit more. On energy costs, we already have the energy-intensive industries scheme and, as I mentioned, we have increased the level of the supercharger. The British industrial competitiveness scheme will come in in 2027 with an additional 25% reduction. He may be interested to know that our electricity costs are already more competitive than many countries in Europe, but not France and Germany, which are the benchmark for me. That is why we are introducing the British industrial competitiveness scheme. On gas, after policy costs we are already competitive. These businesses trade internationally, and our success in striking international trade deals with the EU, the US and India, and with Korea just this week, means that there are more market opportunities all the time.
The shadow Secretary of State made the contrast with ExxonMobil. I reiterate the point that this Government —the Government would always do this, as I am sure he would expect—are investing in a business with a viable and sustainable future where there is a viable business plan, primarily because the owner of the business has invested in the business over time. As I said a few weeks ago in my statement on Mossmorran, ExxonMobil had failed to invest in that plant, and that is why it said that there was a £1 billion investment gap.
On jobs, in the clean energy sector we are creating 40,000 new jobs in Scotland alone and 800,000 jobs across the whole of the country. This is a transition that the Government are actively engaging in and managing. The shadow Secretary of State says that a Conservative Government would do something different from what they did last time, but they did not do anything last time. When Ineos announced in November 2023 that it was going to close its refinery, the Conservative Prime Minister at the time said, “That’s a commercial decision.” They did nothing about it—nothing at all.
Investment in this area is very important, so I refer the shadow Secretary of State to an article that was published this morning by my noble Friend Lord Stockwood, the Minister for Investment. He talked very carefully about the international investment environment and the performance of the UK economy and lamented the fact that so many people in this country—so many Cassandras, such as the shadow Secretary of State—are constantly talking the economy down and frightening investors away. I think it is about time he recognised the success of our clean energy industries and the success of this Government’s industrial strategy and stopped talking Britain down.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, I thank him and the teams across Government who have worked so hard to secure the deal to protect jobs at Grangemouth. I also want to commend all those in Government who have worked so hard to ensure that Babcock flourishes, Methil stays open, and BAE Systems secures contracts with Norway, and just last week they also secured the MiAlgae deal for the Grangemouth site too. All of that stands in stark contrast to the actions of other parties who had, or perhaps should have had, a role in these matters. Can the Minister reflect on that fact and give us some more information about what other developments we see in Grangemouth in the weeks and months ahead?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is quite right, and I would also like to thank her for her engagement on these subjects as well. She rightly pointed out what a vibrant industrial community there is around the Grangemouth area. Already we have companies, such as Babcock, that are keen to recruit people in that local area and that recognise the skills of the workers who will no longer be employed at Mossmorran from February onwards. With the support that the Government have put in place, including the taskforce led by Fife council, and with the Scottish Government and the UK Government working together in concert, I am confident that we will find new jobs for those people, recognising their very high skills.
My hon. Friend mentions MiAlgae—£3 million of support was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget. This great company will be operating on the Grangemouth site, directly in line with the strategy set out in Project Willow, which was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and which he spoke about at the Liaison Committee earlier this week. That points directly to the bright future for Grangemouth.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. I welcome the Government’s announcement that they are stepping in to offer support and protect jobs in this vital industry. We have a duty to safeguard our national security and economic prosperity, and to ensure a fair transition to clean energy. This statement is a step in that direction.
We have long been champions of British industry. We are proud of the industrial policies that we introduced in government, and we must never return to the neglect we saw under the Conservatives, who scrapped our industrial strategy. Having said that, we need to see a far more cohesive plan from this Government to support British business, including our chemicals sector.
High energy costs are a fundamental challenge. The industrial competitiveness scheme will support the 7,000 most energy-intensive firms, but it will not launch until April 2027. Will the Government confirm whether the Grangemouth plant will be included in the scheme? Do Ministers acknowledge that if the scheme had been in place earlier, the situation might have been avoided? Does the Minister agree that we need a long-term plan to slash energy costs for households and businesses alike by seriously investing in renewables and decoupling electricity from gas prices?
Finally, I must press the Minister on another huge added cost for which the Government are responsible, which is of course the national insurance increase. Will he tell the House what is the tax hit imposed on the Grangemouth plant through the national insurance hike since last year’s Budget? Is it greater than the £50 million Government grant handed to Ineos today?
Chris McDonald
I thank the hon. Member for recognising the importance of both the site and the Government’s intervention. She mentioned the £50 million grant. It is important that hon. Members look at that in the context of the total package: a grant and an investment from the owner of the business—and, as the owner of the business said today, an agreement in principle for a profit-sharing arrangement.
That points to the hon. Member’s other question about the detail of the industrial strategy. This industrial strategy is a significant break with the past. It is not about last-minute interventions, which is what the previous Conservative Government did or did not do, depending on how the mood took them. It is about a serious partnership and engagement between Government and industry to ensure that we have sustainable industry in the UK.
The hon. Member asked me about energy costs. I mentioned earlier the relative position on energy costs. Of course, we are doing more on that, and I intend to do much more. In answer to her question on whether it would have helped had the scheme been in place earlier, clearly it would have helped if there had been a Labour Government in place earlier. That would be my advice: always vote Labour.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I very much welcome the protection of 500 jobs at Grangemouth and the commitment to making the most of the energy transition through this investment in carbon capture and storage, in components for wind turbines and indeed in nuclear power plants, as the Minister mentioned in his statement. I turn to the very high electricity costs that industry faces. We have talked about this before, and I raised it with the Prime Minister on Monday at the Liaison Committee. What alternative options are available? The British industrial competitiveness scheme is a very good step in the right direction, but many businesses who will not qualify for that scheme also need help with their very high electricity prices. What is the Minister working on that will start to move the dial for those businesses as well?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for the close attention he gives to this area through his chairmanship of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. He started his question by mentioning the 500 jobs at Grangemouth, which perhaps we have not discussed enough. I really do understand how this announcement from the Government will bring certainty to those workers at Grangemouth as well as their families and their local community. It is incredibly important that we acknowledge that.
On energy costs, my benchmark is how competitive we are in Europe. I mentioned how our electricity costs—particularly our industrial electricity costs—are cheaper than those in some countries in Europe, such as Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, but more expensive than in France and Germany. The British industrial competitiveness scheme will take us a good way towards that, and we are already seeing the benefits of our investment in clean energy. As I have previously said at the Dispatch Box, from 2030 onwards we will see some significant reductions, particularly as we are bringing forward interconnectors that will connect not only the UK with other countries, but wind farm to wind farm—it is always windy somewhere in the North sea—which will help to release capacity and drive down costs. My hon. Friend will see that through both our policy measures and our investment in infrastructure.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It would be wrong not to commend the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on this announcement as he has always been such a strong advocate for jobs at Grangemouth. Indeed, owing to his willingness to speak out against his Government, he lost the Labour Whip.
I noted from the photographs issued around today’s launch that workers at Grangemouth did not seem overly happy to see the Chancellor. Perhaps that was because they know that her policies, which continue to attack the oil and gas industry—particularly through the windfall tax—are leading to the undermining of the oil and gas industry across Scotland.
Chris McDonald
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). I am sure that he would have liked to be here, but he was invited by the Secretary of State for Scotland to join him on the visit. He and I have spoken over the last few weeks. I assure the right hon. Member that I very much value my hon. Friend’s contributions, his relationship and his support, and I know that he is as pleased as I am by the announcement.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
People in Falkirk, Grangemouth and across Forth valley are delighted to see the decisive action taken by this Government to preserve 500 jobs in our community. The £120 million investment and £150 million deal are Labour’s industrial strategy in action. It protects our industrial community and keeps essential national infrastructure viable. I hope that there is a consensus in this House that that is a welcome, positive step. It is worth noting that, earlier this year, the head of external affairs for INEOS told the Scottish Affairs Committee that prior to the November 2023 announcement of the refinery’s closure,
“Both Governments were given the opportunity, the data and access to the data to make an investment decision, and neither Government chose to do that.”
Both the Tories and the SNP had the opportunity in government to support workers at Grangemouth, but they did not lift a finger. Contrast that with this Government’s approach to the ethylene plant, acting decisively before it was too late.
Our action today and further action support new industry, with the welcome announcement last week of MiAlgae bringing 400 jobs across Scotland. Grangemouth’s industrial future must move forward and the Labour Government are providing substantial further resources towards that. Will the Minister provide us with greater detail on what guarantees the Government have received from INEOS for the long-term viability of the ethylene site at Grangemouth and when Grangemouth can expect further funding announcements from the National Wealth Fund’s £200 million commitment, as well as the additional £14 million secured by Scottish Labour MPs in the Budget last month, to get announcements made soon?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued support for his constituents and the Grangemouth site. He welcomes the announcement and, quite rightly, he then presses me for more funding too. Further to the remarks that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made to the Liaison Committee earlier this week, on the £200 million committed earlier this year for projects through the National Wealth Fund, those projects are being examined and shortlisted. I hope that they will come forward soon. I also take this opportunity to commend Siobhan Paterson, councillor for Upper Braes on Falkirk council, who has supported my hon. Friend in this work. I hope that when voters go to the polls for the Scottish parliamentary elections in Falkirk East and Linlithgow, they will recognise that and vote Labour too.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I am glad that the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) did not get an invite, because we got to hear his excellent speech then.
Five hundred jobs being saved is incredibly important and, contrary to what the Prime Minister said earlier, everyone will welcome that, but we cannot escape the fact that 500 jobs are being lost every two weeks in Scotland’s North sea—not my figures but those of Paul de Leeuw from Robert Gordon University, and they are emphasised by the GMB trade union, local charities and industry itself. The Chancellor, while at Grangemouth —[Interruption.] I do not know why Labour Members make quips about people losing their jobs in the North sea. How dare they! While the Chancellor was at Grangemouth today, she was asked whether she agreed with that expert analysis. She said no. Does the Minister agree with her?
Chris McDonald
I sincerely thank the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the announcement. The season of goodwill really is spreading right across the House. He asks a serious question about the transition. We have made no bones about this: oil and gas is an incredibly important industry for the UK and will be for decades to come; but as the oil and gas basin declines, it is important that there is a transition. Fundamentally, that is the difference between this and previous Governments and the point of our industrial strategy.
The right hon. Gentleman mentions Robert Gordon University, which also identified that 90% of workers in the oil and gas sector have skills that are readily transferable into the 40,000 jobs that we are creating in Scotland in clean energy industries. That is in marked contrast with the SNP. In September, Professor Mariana Mazzucato—he may have heard of her because she was an adviser to the Scottish Government—said that the SNP Ministers in Scotland, on industrial strategy, talk the talk but do not walk the walk. This Government are walking the walk.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
Is it not the stark and inconvenient truth for the Opposition parties that for years the Tories and the SNP sat on their hands and allowed the industrial needs of Scotland to go to the wall? Does my hon. Friend agree that, with this £120 million package, this Government are serious about backing our strategically vital industries as well as protecting thousands of jobs on the site and through our supply chains?
Chris McDonald
I do agree with my hon. Friend. It really is astonishing how the previous Conservative Government and the SNP Government in Scotland were prepared just to stand by and let the refinery at Grangemouth close after having been given data for years and deciding not to do anything about it at all. He rightly mentions the supply chains, and the multiplier of jobs in the supply chains is much greater. We recognise that this is a good investment for the taxpayer, not just to secure the vital product that we need in our chemicals and defence industries or because the ethylene plant is important in its own right, but to spread the economic benefits through the supply chains in Scotland and beyond.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
First, like everyone else, I welcome 500 jobs having been secured, but 500 jobs a fortnight are being lost from the oil and gas sector because of this Government’s policies. The Minister has spoken about the supply chain, but those jobs and skills in the supply chain are being lost and will not be there for the transition because of the energy profits levy. The Government have defined what a windfall is. There are no longer windfall prices or windfall profits, but there is still a windfall tax. When will the Government get rid of the windfall tax to protect the supply chain, the oil and gas sector and our vital industries?
Chris McDonald
I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome for the announcement. I think that is something that we can share across the whole House. I would just reiterate the point that the Government recognise the importance of the oil and gas sector. Of course it is important to the UK, to the people who work in it and to local communities as well, but we also recognise that the North sea is a declining basin. We have taken the actions, through our clean energy jobs plan and our clean energy initiatives, to ensure that we secure the supply chains for those clean energy jobs here in the UK. Again, this is a marked contrast between this Government and the previous Conservative Government, who were proud to boast of the UK being the largest market for offshore wind but enabled those jobs to be located in Denmark and other countries around the North sea. We do not think that is acceptable. That is why we are bringing the jobs here and helping workers to transition into those industries.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I strongly welcome this announcement, which, along with the agreement of the Forth green freeport full business case, demonstrates this Government’s commitment to reindustrialising Grangemouth, Leith and the wider Forth area. Can the Minister provide any details on when we will see the £25 million of seed capital attached to that deal being deployed to further secure and create jobs across the area?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend makes the point incredibly well about the need to reindustrialise and create good industrial jobs. It is my mission as Industry Minister to release additional productive capacity in the UK that will increase our manufacturing output and improve our productivity and balance of trade. That is rare—it might be decades since a Government have had this level of ambition for our industrial and manufacturing sectors—but for us it is about not just ambition and words but delivering jobs on the ground.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It would be churlish of Opposition Members not to recognise the importance of these 500 jobs or welcome their being saved, as it would for Government Members not to acknowledge that we are seeing a sort of self-licking ice cream here—a self-perpetuating system whereby the Government have to intervene in industries that are being damaged by their own policies. Industry that is hanging on by the skin of its teeth will not take well to the news of cheaper energy prices in due course—years down the line—because it is almost at the edge of going out of business. Instead of measuring ourselves against expensive Italy and France, should we not be looking at the much cheaper prices in the United States and China?
Chris McDonald
I enjoyed the analogy about the self-licking ice cream, but it demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a real industrial strategy is on the Conservative side of the House. We all like to think that things are simple, but then we grow up. It is important to recognise that these industries are trading in international markets and need to abide by their rules. What we have done is to create a package that supports a sustainable business plan for that industry. The hon. Member mentions the lower energy prices in the USA—I acknowledge that the USA has lower energy prices, primarily due to its decision to introduce fracking. We have decided not to do that. Is he saying that he would like to do that? If he would, that is fine, but it is a point of difference between us—we will not do that. Our policy is to ensure that our industries remain competitive without that.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the statement and the work his team and the Scotland Office team did in securing the 500 jobs at Grangemouth. I also pay tribute to the former Business Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—now the Chief Whip—for the work he did on this deal and on keeping the lights on last Christmas at Harland & Wolff in Arnish, Methil, Belfast and Appledore. Then as now, voters and workers expect the two Governments to work together, but the Minister will confirm that the SNP sat on its hands over Grangemouth. The SNP checked out—as it has checked out today—on standing up for Scotland’s workers.
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right to mention the hard work of the Chief Whip and former Business Secretary, because deals like this with international businesses require a significant amount of discussion and engagement. That is precisely the point of our industrial strategy: it is a partnership in which the Government work closely together with businesses to secure investment for the long term. Investment like this hangs around for a generation and provides generational opportunities for employment in local areas. We know that the decisions that this Government are making will provide those employment opportunities for people in Grangemouth and across Scotland for generations to come.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Minister mentioned in his statement the £200 million for projects in Grangemouth from the National Wealth Fund. I would like to raise with him a concern that was raised in evidence to the Treasury Committee, which is that the National Wealth Fund has to operate on the riskier end of project proposals because it does not want to crowd out private investment, but that means necessarily that many projects will fail. The worry is that politicians will not be ready to defend projects that fail under the National Wealth Fund. Does the Minister agree with that assessment, and is he willing to accept that, given the risk profile of the National Wealth Fund, some projects will fail as part of the deal?
Chris McDonald
I very much welcome the hon. Member’s question because it gives me an opportunity to talk about risk appetite in investment, which I certainly am interested in—if other Members are not, I apologise in advance.
The National Wealth Fund is doing something special and different, but it is also worth looking at it alongside the other tools that the Government have: the British Business Bank and UK Export Finance. The hon. Member is right that the National Wealth Fund’s job is to crowd in, so it should not be at the easy end of the investment; otherwise, it would be crowding out. It has a target to produce a return on investment. Ultimately, the National Wealth Fund needs to take a portfolio approach that delivers that return. I know that in the past, industrial strategies in this country have suffered from casual approaches around things like “picking winners”—that sort of language is incredibly unhelpful. The point of taking a portfolio approach is that, of course, some businesses will succeed and some will not. Frankly, if every business the National Wealth Fund invests in succeeds, its risk appetite is in the wrong place. Some businesses will fail—we accept that; that is absolutely the point of the approach—but as a result of the National Wealth Fund’s investment partnering with industry in the commercial sector to de-risk projects, we will see some big successes, too.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
This is such welcome news for Grangemouth and Scotland just prior to Christmas. My thanks go to the Minister and all Departments that worked jointly to secure the deal. It is a pity that the SNP could not bring itself to mention the Grangemouth investment earlier today at PMQs—perhaps after decades of failure, the SNP cannot recognise success. Does the Minister agree that both the SNP and the Tories sat on their hands while the future of jobs at Grangemouth was at risk? Does he agree that today’s announcement demonstrates that Scotland needs a Scottish Labour Government in Holyrood to secure more good jobs?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is correct that the Government’s decision here and their previous industrial strategy decisions have been in marked contrast to the decisions of the Scottish National party and the Conservatives previously.
There is something astonishing about this. I know that the Conservatives are hidebound by their free market ideology, which means that they are prepared to let British businesses and jobs go to the wall, but surely they should stand up for things like defence and national security, for which these businesses are so vital? They support our defence supply chains, as well as health and water. It should be natural for the Conservatives to stand up for things like that. The past inaction of the Conservatives and the SNP on this issue has been astonishing. The big message to the voters of Scotland is: vote Labour in the spring.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I know that Government Members forget which Parliament they are actually in—who knows, maybe they would feel better in the Scottish Parliament.
This is a welcome announcement. For months now, the Scottish Government have been calling on the UK Government to intervene to protect jobs at Grangemouth and Mossmorran at a scale seen in other parts of the UK. The news will give some much needed Christmas cheer, at least to the Grangemouth community and the workers at Ineos Olefins & Polymers. Last week the Scottish Government, jointly with the UK Government and Celtic Renewables, announced an £8.5 million investment at the Grangemouth industrial cluster, including in MiAlgae. That will create up to 460 jobs, demonstrating that a long-term industrial future at the site is achievable. We will continue to do all we can within the limited powers that the Scottish Parliament has.
However, the announcement today does not help those at the neighbouring refinery whose jobs have already been lost. Although there may be some crossover support for nearby Mossmorran workers, there is still a substantial gap in support. Will the Minister finally accept that one of the most fundamental causes of the need for support is the fiscal regime being inflicted on oil and gas and the use of the energy profits levy, which make a just transition a near impossibility?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman mentions the refinery; as I said earlier, Ineos made the final decision to close the refinery in November 2023, having provided data for years to the Conservative Government in Westminster and the SNP in Holyrood, who said and did nothing.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the scale of investment; I am really surprised, to be honest, that he has not raised that even more firmly. We are talking about a complete package of investment in Grangemouth, announced by this Government, that approaches half a billion pounds: £100 million in the summer, £200 million from the National Wealth Fund, £14.5 million in the Budget and £150 million in this package. That is only a rounding error shy of half a billion pounds for Grangemouth. I would have thought that the SNP would at least acknowledge that.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all the Ministers across all the Departments who have worked together to get this over the line. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) for not giving up and making sure that it happened.
Grangemouth matters to all of us; we all have constituents who work in the complex or the supply chain. There has been real investment. As a result of announcements over the last few months and again today, we can talk about new highly skilled jobs for a generation. We are again able to talk to people locally about how important it is to get jobs in the advanced manufacturing and chemical sectors. Given that skills are devolved to the Scottish Government, how is the Minister liaising with them to make sure that we are getting that investment for our young people?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend spoke powerfully about how Grangemouth matters to the local area. I was chairing a roundtable of the chemicals industry at the Wilton cluster in Teesside; those who, like me, have worked in the chemicals industry or work there now know that Grangemouth matters to all of us across the United Kingdom. The support of the workers and families in Grangemouth makes a big difference to all our lives.
My hon. Friend mentioned jobs. I have talked about the jobs in the clean energy sector created in Scotland and the rest of the country. Last week, I saw that for myself when I attended a clean energy jobs fair at the port of Tyne. I spoke to apprentices excited about the new job opportunities that this Government are creating. The one thing that they know—they heard it from me and said it themselves—is that Reform are coming for their jobs. They know that firmly, and should certainly take it into account when they vote.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I strongly welcome today’s announcement, which is important not only for workers in Grangemouth but for the wider Scottish economy. Whether it is today’s announcement about Grangemouth, protecting shipbuilding on the Clyde or the supercomputer in Edinburgh, the Labour Government are standing up for workers and for Scotland’s strategic industries. Does the Minister agree that whereas Labour stands up for manufacturing, the SNP can only manufacture grievance?
Chris McDonald
I certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. Given that he represents Edinburgh, he might like to learn an interesting Grangemouth fact: if the Government had not stepped in to support Ineos, the Grangemouth site would be flaring enough gas every day to power the entire city of Edinburgh, such is the scale and importance of the Grangemouth site.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Minister, I need you to lead by giving an answer that is the definition of succinct.
Chris McDonald
I will try to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker. Grangemouth certainly has great potential for the manufacture of sustainable aviation fuel, along with our other clusters. My hon. Friend mentioned managed decline, but it was worse than that: it was complete indifference to industry and manufacturing in the UK.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I will try to keep my question brief. The SNP and the Tories sat on their hands while jobs and livelihoods were at risk, so I warmly welcome the announcement today and I thank the Minister and all Departments involved. The announcement not only protects 500 jobs; it is an investment in our national security. Does the Minister agree that it is only Labour that is backing business, backing workers and backing Scotland?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right that this is an investment in our national security, our infrastructure, our industry, the workforce and the opportunities for young people in the Grangemouth area.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Today’s news of UK Government investment in Grangemouth is welcome. Following the devastating announcement by ExxonMobil about job losses at Mossmorran in my constituency, the Mossmorran taskforce is now up and running to give maximum support to the workforce and to consider the future of that site. I welcome the news today that the Mossmorran workers will be prioritised for interview for new jobs created at Ineos in Grangemouth. The Minister and I have discussed this, but will he confirm that the Government are exploring investing in possible alternative futures for the site and the workforce at Mossmorran?
Chris McDonald
Industrial sites like the one at Mossmorran are incredibly valuable to the UK. We mentioned the strategic sites accelerator in our industrial strategy, and I would be interested to explore whether Mossmorran could be a part of that. It is important that we do that and that we move fast, because I learned only today that prior to this, the SNP-led Scottish Government have not held a single meeting about planning transition for Mossmorran, so we will have to run fast to catch up.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
In common with colleagues, I thank all the Members on the Government Front Bench for their work on this investment, including the former Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), and the current Secretary of State. Grangemouth can be seen from the Fife coastal path in my constituency, and many of my constituents work at Grangemouth. While the site was totally ignored by the SNP and the Tories for years, this Government have dutifully and quietly gone about their work of finding an effective solution that will not only protect 500 jobs, but create more in the future, showing the commitment that this Government have to the Forth valley. Does the Minister agree that this shows what can happen when we have a constructive Labour Government, and that we could do even more with Anas Sanwar as the First Minister next year?
Chris McDonald
I do agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that with Anas Sarwar as the leader at Holyrood, we will be able to implement the Government’s work on Project Willow, which has identified Grangemouth as the ideal site for plastics recycling, biofuels and other projects that will maximise the local competitive advantage and the skills of the workforce.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
After the Tories and the SNP did nothing for so many years to address the long-term future of Grangemouth, it is hugely welcome that Labour Ministers have made this announcement, which offers opportunities to workers in Fife affected by the closure of the ExxonMobil plant at Mossmorran. What further opportunities will the modern industrial strategy offer for skilled jobs in high-growth industries in Scotland, including at the Methil yard in my constituency, which was saved by this Government?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right to point out that it is only this Labour Government who have made this decision. This is an appropriate time to identify that the intervention in Grangemouth has a significant impact on securing our ethylene pipeline, which runs across the whole of the UK, as well as on chemical plants in Runcorn and the Forties pipeline. That demonstrates that interventions like this and plants such as Grangemouth work well when we are all part of an integrated United Kingdom.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Members might ask, “What has Grimsby got to do with Grangemouth?” Well, this is great news for Grangemouth, but I am afraid it will be cold comfort to the workers at the Prax Lindsey oil refinery, where 400 directly employed people have already lost or will lose their jobs by March, along with hundreds more in the supply chain. They will be asking, “Why the investment there but not here?” Is there any good news on the horizon for jobs in petrochemicals or energy in the Humber?
Chris McDonald
That is exactly the right question to ask about the Prax Lindsey oil refinery. One of the fundamental differences between the two is the Government’s ability to deal with the owner. The owner of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery left the business in a really terrible state. Of course, we all care very deeply for the workers there and for the families in Humberside; having worked in Humberside myself, I empathise greatly with them.
We are now in the late stages of the process with the official receiver, who has confirmed some redundancies because the offers he has received do not see refinery production returning within the next few years. We hope that process will conclude in the new year. I believe the jobs are guaranteed until March, and the Government have provided significant transitional support to help the workers to move into other jobs in the local area.
Ministerial Correction
Chris McDonald Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks 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 Minister for Digital Economy (Baroness Lloyd of Effra CBE) has today made the following statement.
The Government’s answer to written question HL985, published on 8 October 2024, included the following paragraph:
“UK Seabed Resources Limited has two International Seabed Authority exploration contracts, UKSR1 and UKSR2. These have an initial period of 15 years with the contract period of UKSR1 ending in 2026 and UKSR2 ending in 2027.”
That paragraph contained errors, so I am correcting the record today. The paragraph should have read as follows:
“UK Seabed Resources Limited has two International Seabed Authority exploration contracts, UK1 and UK2. These have an initial period of 15 years with the contract period of UK1 ending in 2028 and UK2 ending in 2031”.
[HCWS1189]
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
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
Our 10-year industrial strategy and sector plans will boost economic growth nationwide. South Wales is set to gain a new investment zone in Cardiff and Newport, targeting semiconductors and advanced manufacturing. Across Wales, manufacturers can benefit from a range of other industrial strategy measures that target lower energy costs, faster grid connections, and billions in new capital investments for small and medium-sized enterprises, making it easier to innovate, expand and thrive.
Ruth Jones
I welcome the Minister’s response and the additional support for the compound semiconductor cluster in my constituency. What conversations has he had with Welsh Government colleagues on delivering the joint objectives of the Welsh manufacturing action plan and the UK industrial strategy to attract additional investment and jobs to the Welsh semiconductor cluster?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing to champion the Welsh semi- conductor cluster, which is so important for our entire advanced manufacturing sector. The Minister for artificial intelligence and online safety—the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan)—was in Wales last week, meeting industry leaders and co-chairing the semiconductor advisory panel, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade was recently at the Wales investment summit. We hope to attract many more investors to the compound semiconductor cluster in south Wales.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
My hon. Friend, through his chairmanship of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, is working very hard to highlight the issues of business competitiveness and energy costs to businesses. I would draw his attention to the British industrial competitiveness scheme consultation, which I launched a couple of weeks ago, which is our commitment through the industrial strategy to reduce energy costs for over 7,000 manufacturing businesses by around £40 per megawatt-hour from 2027. I encourage all Members to ensure that manufacturing businesses in their constituencies respond to that consultation.
Bill Esterson
Reducing costs by £40 per megawatt-hour for 7,000 manufacturing businesses is welcome, as is the news in the Budget of changes to the British industry supercharger scheme. However, there are tens—if not hundreds—of thousands of other manufacturing businesses facing some of the highest electricity prices in Europe, which has been the case for many years. What is the plan to help the businesses facing very high bills right now while we wait for lower electricity bills in the longer term through Government plans for clean power?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right. Alongside the British industrial competitiveness scheme, we have also committed to increasing network charges compensation from 60% to 90% under the network charging compensation scheme. We are also reviewing our energy intensive industries compensation scheme. He is right to recognise the lack of competitiveness on energy prices between the UK and the rest of Europe—a terrible situation that was bequeathed to us by the previous Conservative Government and their ideological adherence to relying on foreign dictators such as Putin for Britain’s energy needs. We are investing in our future energy needs to ensure that they are clean, cheap and secure.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
National Grid is going to spend about £30 billion by the end of the decade building pylons, but only 2% of the steel used to build those pylons will be British; similarly, in the offshore wind projects, only 2% of the steel will be British. That is because of carbon taxes and energy costs. Does the Minister recognise that rather than promoting the opportunity of the great, green revolution that they were espousing earlier, the Government are actually killing British business with high energy costs?
Chris McDonald
I do not believe the hon. Gentleman is correct to attribute that cause to carbon taxes or energy costs, but I share his concern about the lack of British steel and other British materials being used in construction projects funded by the taxpayer. I believe that the taxpayer expects materials for such projects to largely be sourced from the UK. That is why I had cause over the last couple of weeks to speak to British Petroleum about its use of Chinese steel in energy projects. I will continue to call in the chief executives of companies and discuss with them how we will increase British content in British projects.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The UK ceramics sector is one of the most gas and electricity-intensive industries in the UK, so I make my usual plea to the Minister to consider changes to the supercharger scheme ahead of the British industrial competitiveness scheme coming online. Will he also give some thought to the electrification process? There are parts of the ceramics sector that would like to electrify, but the industrial grid capacity simply does not exist yet. What will the Government do to allow those companies to move forward with electrification, which ultimately will help to bring down their energy bills?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the incredibly constructive Westminster Hall debate we had last week on the ceramics industry, which was supported by my hon. Friend and other Members representing ceramics constituencies around the Stoke and Staffordshire area.
I recognise my hon. Friend’s call for ceramics to be considered under the review of the supercharger scheme, and I have ensured that those calls have been heard within the Department. I want to ensure that ceramics is considered very carefully as part of that. I also appreciate the continued commitment of Ceramics UK, which I met with last week, and the rest of the ceramics industry to work together with me to see how we can improve the competitiveness of the industry.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
In Wokingham we are lucky to have 119 great hospitality businesses. Those businesses are struggling under the burden of rising energy costs, increases in national insurance and business rates and many other cost increases. The Liberal Democrats called for a 5% cut in VAT to help the hospitality sector, but the Chancellor ignored that proposal, which would have gone some way to help businesses cope with rising energy costs. What is the Minister doing to ease the concerns of business owners in Wokingham, who will be worried about their businesses?
Chris McDonald
The Government are, of course, very concerned about cost pressures on hospitality businesses. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) met with hospitality businesses just this week to discuss exactly that. The hon. Member raises the question of a reduction in value added tax, which would affect the whole industry, so it would be something of a blunt instrument. Instead, the Government are providing transitional support for those businesses, particularly on business rates. We continue to listen to and work with the sector.
Mr Speaker
Order. One of us is going to have to sit down. Please, it is topicals and I have some Members who did not get in before you. You’ve got to help them, please.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for so kindly hosting me on a trip to Falmouth port, where I saw for myself the great potential in her constituency for critical minerals and floating offshore wind. I recognise the skills issue, and the Government are supporting the sector through the Government’s clean energy jobs plan and another £180 million for demonstration projects. She should be assured that I have raised the potential of Falmouth, particularly the extensive anchorage there, with both the National Wealth Fund and the Crown Estate.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The UK-US economic prosperity deal was very welcome for the automotive sector, but there are some challenges for that sector. The current quota of 100,000 units and the quarterly thresholds are particularly difficult for small-volume and micro manufacturers, such as Aston Martin, McLaren and Morgan. What conversations are taking place between the US and the UK on those details?
Chris McDonald
I certainly recognise the issue of the quota, and the importance of our small-volume manufacturers such as Aston Martin and McLaren. I met McLaren last week, I had a meeting with Aston Martin this week as part of the Automotive Council UK, and I will meet Aston Martin’s chief executive in the new year. This is perhaps a good opportunity to congratulate McLaren and Lando Norris on his outstanding win at the Formula 1 championship—only 35 men have won the F1 championship, and 11 of them have been British. The motorsport industry is a fine example of British engineering and British sportsmanship coming together.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Last week I met Community union representatives representing steelworkers across Wales, including in Llanwern— I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. They support the welcome movement on energy costs, and they know that the Government are working on procurement and that there will be a steel strategy, but the most urgent ask is on the EU’s steel import quotas and tariffs. Can the Minister please give us an update on those?
British Steel
Chris McDonald 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 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 £274 million for working capital, covering items such as raw materials, salaries, and addressing unpaid bills, including for SMEs in the supply chain. This will be reflected in the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for 2025-26.
The impact assessment relating to the Act has been submitted and is currently awaiting review by the Regulatory Policy Committee. It will be published in due course following their scrutiny. We are also continuing work on the introduction of a compensation scheme for steel undertakings in scope of the Act.
We continue to work with Jingye to find a pragmatic, realistic solution for the future of British Steel. As we have stated previously, our long-term aspiration for the company will require co-investment with the private sector to enable modernisation and decarbonisation, safeguard taxpayers’ money and retain steelmaking in Scunthorpe. 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.
Steel strategy
The Government remain committed to supporting the UK steel sector and delivering a steel strategy. A robust position on trade is a critical element of this strategy, underpinning our approach to defending against unfair practices and global overcapacity. To protect our domestic sector, we are prioritising developing robust measures in the light of the UK steel safeguard expiring during 2026, making sure there are healthy levels of imports, and engaging with our partners. We will therefore publish the steel strategy in early 2026.
[HCWS1149]
Advanced Ceramics Industry: North Staffordshire
Chris McDonald 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 and Trade (Chris McDonald)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) for securing this debate. She knows how much I care about the ceramics industry and how much I appreciate any opportunity to talk about ceramics. I am grateful we have had that opportunity today. Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire have much to be proud of in their rich and diverse ceramics industry. Stoke-on-Trent is the historic home of the UK ceramics industry, but the sector spans so much of our country and is important to the lives of numerous communities.
I know that this year has been a difficult year for the ceramics industry. I was deeply saddened to learn of the closure of ceramics firms such as Royal Stafford and Moorcroft, as I am sure many of my colleagues were. I think not only of the loss of great brands and great capabilities, but of what it will mean to the workforce and the local community, who have taken such pride in their production of ceramics products from those factories over so many years.
Although ceramics encompass decorative and tableware, advanced ceramics are essential as well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South outlined. For Members who are not so familiar with the ceramics industry, they have the opportunity to go downstairs to the Westminster Hall fair and buy a very fine teapot from Moorlands, as I did earlier. It will replace a cracked teapot in the Department for Business and Trade of unknown origin—I have been informed that it may be from Turkey. I am very pleased that I will be able to replace it with a British teapot today.
Every time I drink my tea in the Department, I will be reminded of the ceramics industry in the UK, and every time anyone picks up their mobile phone, they could think about the advanced ceramics in it. As we have heard, advanced ceramics are also present in medical devices such as hip replacements and in the space industry. Advanced ceramics are providing essential components for defence, energy and our advanced technology industries. That includes companies such as Mantec, which produces advanced filter technology, as my hon. Friend mentioned.
As set out in the industrial strategy, ceramics, particularly advanced and technical ceramics, are a key input in the advanced manufacturing and clean energy sectors. I reiterate that ceramics is an essential sector, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams). The support that I will set out will help the sector to play a key role in kick-starting economic growth in the country, which is the central mission of this Government.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South on her continued advocacy and championing of the sector and on her vision of the establishment of a sovereign advanced ceramics manufacturing facility in north Staffordshire. In this geopolitically uncertain world, security of critical supply chains is essential, and I encourage her to continue the conversations that she is having with Innovate UK on that subject.
The Government understand that businesses face numerous challenges day to day, particularly the price of electricity. That is why we recently announced an uplift to the network charging compensation scheme from 60% to 90%.
Gareth Snell
The Minister mentioned electricity prices. I have repeatedly asked the Government to consider the expansion of the supercharger scheme for current industrial use by the ceramics sector. That would be a massive help before the British industrial competitiveness scheme comes online. I know the Minister is going to outline a series of significant things that he believes the Government could do to support the ceramics sector. I encourage him to consider working with the APPG on a bespoke ceramics strategy that would be cross-departmental and cross-Government, so that the support that I know he desperately wants to offer us can be replicated across Government, so that when we have these debates in the future, we can talk about how we implement the help that we need rather than talk about the help we hope we can get.
Chris McDonald
Although the compensation scheme I outlined is delivering £1.7 million to eight ceramics firms, I am acutely aware that it does not cover the vast majority of the sector. I met today with the chief executive of Ceramics UK. We discussed this issue and the fact that eligibility for the scheme is up for review in 2026. I have committed to working closely with him to see what opportunity there will be to extend the scheme to other ceramics firms and to ensure that the review takes every opportunity to see whether there is the potential for greater eligibility for ceramics firms. I am always happy to work with the APPG. Perhaps we can take my hon. Friend’s suggestion further and have further discussions about that.
Adam Jogee
I want to add my voice to that of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). A bespoke ceramics strategy would do wonders for our part of the world—in Newcastle-under-Lyme, in neighbouring Stoke-on-Trent and further afield into the east midlands. I want to reassure the Minister that a number of us would make that case, and make it strongly.
Chris McDonald
I know that my hon. Friend will be familiar with the benefit that sector strategies have had in other areas through his work as the vice-chair of the international trade and investment all-party parliamentary group. I take his comments very seriously and will absolutely consider them.
Last week, we launched a consultation for the British industrial competitiveness scheme. That is an opportunity for many thousands more additional manufacturing businesses to benefit from reduced electricity prices. I encourage the ceramics industry to participate in the consultation for that scheme. The Government are committed to ensuring that our electricity price support schemes continue to be targeted, effective and proportionate, and represent value for money for the British taxpayer. However, we are not stopping there.
I recognise that many ceramics businesses do not benefit from our electricity price support schemes due to their gas-intensive nature. For some of those businesses, electrification is possible, although it will require capital investment. For other businesses, there are currently no electrification options. Through our engagement with trade bodies, trade unions and businesses, we are working to consider all possible options for how we can help ceramics businesses further. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South and other hon. Members as we develop that work over the coming months.
Trade has benefited the UK, and we continue to go from strength to strength in negotiating trade deals. The Government are proud of the work that went into the India free trade agreement and the ongoing work on our free trade agreement with the Gulf Co-operation Council. The UK-India free trade agreement will see the immediate or staged removal of tariffs on ceramic exports to India, opening up access to India’s large and growing middle class for producers of consumer ceramics, as well as to India’s many infrastructure projects and manufacturing opportunities for UK businesses in the advanced ceramics sector.
The agreement will also include a comprehensive trade remedies chapter. That chapter, as well as reaffirming existing safeguard provisions, includes a bilateral safeguard mechanism that will allow the UK or India to temporarily increase tariffs or suspend tariff concessions if there is a surge of imports causing injury or threat of serious injury to domestic industry as a result of the tariff liberalisation set out in the agreement.
The UK has been negotiating a modern and ambitious free trade agreement with the Gulf Co-operation Council that will boost economic growth and increase investment in the UK. That deal will help to grow our economy and bring benefits to communities across the country.
Dr Gardner
Do I take it from the Minister’s response that we will have some help to prevent china-dumping? GMB and great campaigners such as Sharon Yates have been campaigning to stop the huge foreign imports that are coming in and damaging our locally and British-made products.
Chris McDonald
By elucidating the trade deal with India and the deal that we hope to strike with the Gulf Co-operation Council, I am hoping to outline the fact that there is not only a commitment to trade that will enable UK producers to access markets, but a commitment to fair trade. That is far easier done within the bounds of a free trade agreement where there are existing mechanisms in place. That is why our Department is working so hard to ensure that we get additional coverage of free trade agreements through various jurisdictions around the world.
Turning back to the Gulf Co-operation Council agreement, the UK is currently a net importer of ceramics from the Gulf states. Reducing UK tariffs has been identified as one of the GCC’s priorities. Our objective is to secure provisions that support competitiveness and growth across the UK while safeguarding UK manufacturing interests.
I understand that there is more work to be done to support our local ceramics firms that may be at risk from cheap imports from abroad. The standard response to this—I will give it and then qualify it, if that is acceptable—is to encourage ceramics companies to engage with the Trade Remedies Authority. However, I am aware of the significant burden that imposes in terms of cost and time, so I would encourage hon. Members who are in touch with ceramics companies in their areas—I will continue my engagement with Ceramics UK—to carefully monitor the ability of those companies to engage with the Trade Remedies Authority and to ensure that it is possible for their issues to be raised. If there are concerns about time and cost, I would appreciate it if they were raised with me directly.
Gareth Snell
If the Minister is looking at the Trade Remedies Authority, perhaps he could also look at the lesser duty rule, under which a product imported from China or the EU would face a higher tariff under their remedies than it does in the UK, because we have deliberately set our system to apply the lesser duty rather than the injury duty. It is technical, but it would make a big difference if he could consider that.
Chris McDonald
It is a very technical issue, and I have thought of little else since my hon. Friend explained it to me in great detail a few days ago. I will certainly commit to continuing to think about it, and I thank him for bringing it to my attention and placing it on the record.
Dr Gardner
Regarding trade, exporting to the EU is particularly challenging, and I look forward to any trade deals we may see from there to help with that.
Chris McDonald
Yes, I recognise that. Any further improvements in relation to our nearest and largest market would certainly be welcome.
Clearly, decarbonisation will require further innovation, and I commend industry and academia on the groundbreaking research they have conducted, which I know my hon. Friend has vigorously supported. I recognise the work of Lucideon; it is an organisation I know well, and it is indeed a world-leading developer of research and innovation for the ceramics sector. I also recognise the work of its AMRICC centre—the Applied Materials Research, Innovation and Commercialisation centre—and the Midlands Industrial Ceramics Group, which have benefited from direct grant support. My hon. Friend also asked about engagement with the National Wealth Fund. I will be happy for my office to provide contact details for a direct conversation to take place.
My hon. Friend made a point about increasing UK capability for defence. She and the ceramics industry may consider responding to a consultation launched by the Ministry of Defence on 23 October on its offset regime, which has the potential to ensure that we get greater investment in industries such as ceramics in our defence supply chains. The Government, particularly through UK Research and Innovation, work with and support such stakeholders to accelerate that kind of research and propel decarbonisation.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) that it is important that we share innovation across multiple sectors. I am thinking particularly of the Foundation Industries Sustainability Consortium, for instance, which shows that there is great opportunity for furnace technology and so on to be shared across the foundation industries.
I very much echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) that north Staffordshire is well placed to attract further investment and to continue to go from strength to strength and become the UK centre for ceramics. In response to the specific request about attending a roundtable, I would be very happy to do that and to have further discussions with the industry. I believe I have a couple of engagements with the ceramics industry already in my diary in the period after Christmas, and I would be happy to attend a roundtable, either separately or as part of one of those events.
Adam Jogee
I thank the Minister for acknowledging the points about Newcastle-under-Lyme and north Staffordshire. We are happy to host that meeting, so if he can let us know the best way to get it into the diary, we will get it done sooner rather than later.
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend. Far be it from me to adjudicate between a bunch of Stokies as to where the meeting should be—I will leave that to hon. Members themselves to figure out—but I remain ready to travel to the area to take part in the meetings, or to host the meeting at the Department if that is preferred.
Whether it is decorative or tableware, bricks, tiles or pipes, advanced ceramics or sanitaryware—as has been raised with me so many times by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson)—or even refractories, probably the area I know best, advanced ceramics are essential for the delivery of our industrial strategy. I would be happy to work with hon. Members and the companies in their areas to ensure that the ceramics industry gets the best chance it can to continue to be a great British industry.
Question put and agreed to.