Scunthorpe Steelworks

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

Through our plan for steel and the £2.5 billion that we are investing in the steel industry, we are aiming to do exactly that, to keep the industry going. I invite the hon. Gentleman to go and see the other sites around the country where we have electric arc furnaces in operation, because they are not that different from blast furnaces: they are still massive buildings melting and making the steel, but in a much more efficient way. The problem we have with Scunthorpe is that the blast furnaces are very old and will need huge amounts of money spent on them, and of course British Steel is losing £700,000 a day on Scunthorpe. This is not about ideology or particular political beliefs; this is about economics and about making sure that we protect our country, that we provide the defences we need, and that we are as secure as we can be in a changing world. On that, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her statement; I know that she is doing all she can on the issue. We cannot have a defence industrial strategy unless we have our own primary steelmaking facilities, so clearly we cannot let these furnaces close. I was interested to hear what the Minister said about having various meetings in Whitehall and with the Treasury. When is she likely to be able to come back to the House and report on the progress made on this issue and, importantly, on a steel strategy for the long term—not just five or 10 years, but 20 years or more?

[Sarah Jones]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Treasury is completely committed to having a plan for steel. We talked to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor a lot about this when we were in opposition, just as we have been doing in Government. The very generous offer put on the table to British Steel was signed off, as is quite right, by the Chancellor and by the Prime Minister. They are both committed to this. We will be coming back in the spring with the steel plan, in which we will set out how we will spend the rest of the fund that we have. In the meantime, I again urge British Steel to come back and talk about the offer that is on the table and see whether we can come to a deal.

Groceries Code Adjudicator

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George]

Well, I suppose I should—no, I will not. One stands on the shoulders of giants, and Colin Breed did a tremendous amount of work from 1997 to 2001. He produced an excellent report called “Checking out the Supermarkets”, which laid a lot of the groundwork for the Grocery Market Action Group. Albert Owen, David Drew and other Labour Members were also very supportive and active throughout those years. There was not always cross-party agreement, or even agreement within my own party, that we should intervene in the market in the way that was proposed. We had to win that argument, and ultimately we did.

At the end of the day, the justification for why the Groceries Code Adjudicator, or any kind of market intervention of that nature, was needed, was that, fundamentally, we had a dysfunctional supply chain operating largely to the benefit of the supermarkets. Not all of our agricultural sector was benefiting from European subsidies or any other public subsidies in those days, but it had become dependent on subsidies because the market was so dysfunctional that public money was needed to prop up the whole system. If we have a functioning market, one can enable the agricultural sector to free itself from dependence on public subsidy. That was largely what was behind what we were trying to do in those days.

When the Groceries Code Adjudicator was established and the code was created, the intention then was only that it would create a framework in which future Governments would review its progress and then build on the framework by introducing or reducing regulations. Certainly the framework was to provide the skeleton on which further developments could happen; of course one cannot anticipate all circumstances.

I want to follow up on the points made by the hon. Member for Salford and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe. There are a number of improvements that I hope the Government will look at very closely. For example, the code should be applied throughout the supply chain, not just to the direct supplier to the supermarket. It was never the intention of the Grocery Market Action Group that the adjudicator should look only at the final transaction between the ultimate supplier to the supermarket and the supermarket itself, because the impact of that contract could be fed right down through the supply chain.

The second point concerned third-country suppliers. The reason why Traidcraft, the Fairtrade Foundation and so on were involved is because they were rightly hoping that third countries could be involved. Then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe said, the adjudicator could launch its own investigation on the basis of market intelligence. Finally, it could work alongside the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, for example, to use its intelligence to take matters forward. Fundamentally, we have a framework that can be developed and improved. It certainly should not depend on seconded staff. We do not get commitment to the cause if we depend entirely on seconded staff, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe said. I hope the Minister will look carefully at this. Thank you very much, Mr Twigg, for allowing me to speak.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

We have just two more Members left to speak, but I want to call the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 5.08 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) should not be so self-deprecating. The Groceries Code Adjudicator was brought about by an excellent piece of work and a good campaign. It was possibly the only thing of any worth that the Lib Dems did in government with the Conservatives.

I just want to make a couple of brief points because my hon. Friends the Members for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and others have covered the ground very well. I am a member of the bakers union group, too, and in 2013 we welcomed the introduction of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. We met a few times to talk about the individual issues that occurred then. If hon. Members can remember, we raised the issue of low-cost production, particularly of bread, which was a result of supermarket pressure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salford raised the issue of private equity. If we thought it was bad enough when there were individual supermarkets of sizeable status, we are now in a completely different world. Private equity is sweeping them up, exercising enormous power. I feel that the Government need to get ahead of the game. It is like the residential care sector before private equity took over and leveraged those individual companies. I can remember a number of them collapsing, and I think we are in exactly the same position here. That is why the call for an inquiry, bringing in all concerned partners, is invaluable. It is important to think through the implications and what regulation we can develop. The bakers union is calling for a new regulatory authority, because that would give more status and resources, as my hon. Friend pointed out. We need to understand the significance of what is happening in the field at the moment.

I want to make a second, brief point. The Minister here today is also responsible for the Employment Rights Bill that is going through Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford mentioned low pay. The bakers union survey found that 80% of its members were struggling to get by on basics such as rent, heat and food. There is a scandal on sick pay in this sector. The survey found that 37% of workers have to rely on statutory sick pay alone when they go off sick. Staggeringly, 13% received no sick pay at all. As a result, I believe some are forced into working when they are sick, which is the last thing anyone wants in this sector. It is important that the issue of sick pay is addressed in the Employment Rights Bill, which I think most people will welcome. I know amendments on that are being tabled as we speak and, in this sector, it could have a direct impact on the wellbeing of workers.

Finally, if we are to move forward, from the bakers union perspective the establishment of a regulatory authority is critical. How it is made democratically accountable is also important. Along with the engagement of farmers and supermarkets, it is key that workers are involved and represented through the unions involved in this sector, so that we can plan a long-term strategy for food production that is not based on low pay or exploitation of farmers.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the Front-Bench spokespeople, I should say that I will call the Minister no later than 20 past. I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, Tim Farron.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing the debate. It will perhaps come as news to him that I, too, was one of the people who voted for the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I was a Member during the coalition Government and it was put on the statute book back in 2013 because our farmers wanted an adjudicator to tackle the imbalance between small producers of food and big supermarket buyers. We will always back our farmers for fairness and equity for food producers.

The adjudicator regulates relationships between the UK’s largest grocery retailers and their direct suppliers, and it ensures that excessive risks and unexpected costs are not unfairly transferred. It brings fairer prices to the farming community and provides a guardrail for those smaller food producers who do not have a voice in the complicated food production market. It is funded by a pragmatic levy on designated retailers, with a UK annual turnover of more than £1 billion. There are currently 14 retailers covered by the code.

The results from the annual survey in 2024 show that the adjudicator is making a difference. More than 3,000 responses to that survey show that the number of suppliers experiencing a code issue has fallen to 33% and that the number of suppliers highlighting a retailer’s response to a cost price increase as an issue almost halved, falling from 28% in 2023 to just 16%. For the first time, the Co-op came top of the 14 retailers for overall code compliance, at 98%. The Co-op and Lidl both experienced a 2% improvement, which was the biggest percentage improvement across the 14 retailers.

The adjudicator is there to protect suppliers, such as our precious farmers. However, we are concerned that the Government’s recent actions have done anything but protect our farmers. Food retailers and suppliers of all sizes are under huge pressure because of Labour’s tax on jobs, its increasing red tape around jobs, food inflation and job losses in supermarkets. Labour’s family farm tax is yet another blow. It is a death tax on important family businesses. With no farmers in the UK, there would be no UK-grown food. Under Labour, the family farm will wither and die unless the Chancellor can be persuaded to change her mind.

Food producers are at the heart of our communities and the Government should be doing everything they can to support them, not harm them, and to ensure food security in this country. The attack on our farmers is shocking in every way. The Labour MPs who voted for an inheritance tax on family farms simply do not understand where their food comes from. Labour is harming our farms, not prioritising our rural areas. It simply does not understand.

The Conservatives believe that good policy needs to be created in collaboration with the farming industry, rather than in isolation. We have always kept the Groceries Code Adjudicator under review since its inception and we urge the Government to continue to do so.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

If the Minister can leave a bit of time at the end for David Chadwick to wind up, that would be great.

UK Steel Manufacturing

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

Well, the previous Government did not. We have a £2.5 billion fund and, as I said, we are looking at DRI to make virgin iron. To be clear, we are having to deal with a mess that we inherited. Virgin steel is important, and that is what we are looking at. I am not going to say to the hon. Gentleman right now that this is what we are spending our £2.5 billion investment on, because this is being worked on at pace. We will come back to the House as soon as we have something to announce.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

The defence industry manufacturing base is, of course, vital to this country, not least in the engineering jobs it provides. We know that steel is crucial to building armoured vehicles and ships, for instance. It is very important that we have a regular and guaranteed supply of steel, and we want to see more UK steel used in defence manufacturing.

[Sarah Jones]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who has much expertise in this area. The Department is working closely with the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Defence to make sure we are maintaining our defence. We are building as much as we can in the UK, with as many contracts in the UK as we can. We are using the power of Government to deliver that.

Mental Health and Wellbeing Plan

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I will call Kevan Jones to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for a 30-minute debate, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the mental health and wellbeing plan.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

It is now 11 years since there was a major debate in Parliament on mental illness, when I and many other hon. Members spoke about their own experiences. That debate changed attitudes in this place towards mental illness and wellbeing, and both the press and members of the public have made great strides in being able to speak about mental health. We also now have members of the royal family speaking about their own mental illness, and it is heartening to see the Prince of Wales taking mental health and wellbeing as one of their charity initiatives. Unfortunately, however, there is still a lot of progress to be made in delivering timely treatment, particularly prevention and early intervention.

In England, the numbers speak for themselves. Around 1.7 million people are in contact with mental health services, and according to NHS England’s monthly statistic dashboard, 26,000 of them are occupying hospital beds or have a hospital bed open to them. We have also seen severe pressures on ambulance services and the police due to people in mental health crisis asking for help. However, according to the National Audit Office, there could be around 8 million people with mental health needs that are not currently being met by mental health services.

I am sure the Minister will tell us shortly that the Government are delivering record levels of investment in mental health services, but according to research by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, almost a quarter of people are waiting more than 12 weeks for any form of treatment. Some 43% of mental health patients say that longer waiting times make their conditions worse, and 78% resort to attending A&E because they cannot access services. I am sorry, but that is unacceptable. It shows that despite the amount of money going into mental health—I would argue that there needs to be more—much more needs to be done on prevention. We need a joined-up approach across Government to reduce the demand on services and to get people more timely treatment and intervention.

That is why I welcomed the Government’s announcement of the development of a cross-departmental 10-year mental health and wellbeing plan last year, and it was also broadly welcomed by everyone in the mental health sphere, including many charities. It was launched with a great fanfare of publicity as a major initiative by the Government, who said at the time of the launch that

“now is the right time to think about bold, long-term actions to build the mentally healthy society that we want to see in 10 years’ time.”

The then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), said that

“our new 10-year plan will set an ambitious agenda for where we want the mental health of our nation to be in a decade’s time.”

Over 5,200 individuals, organisations and stakeholders responded to the discussion paper. Charities such as Mind said that a truly cross-Government plan will play a key role in making sure that support for our mental health starts to rebuild, post pandemic, to the same level as our physical health, so it was a bit of a shock when the 10-year plan was quietly scrapped in January this year. Instead, the Government say that mental health will be addressed in their major conditions strategy. As I have already stated, it is clear from the number of people requiring interventions that mental health should be included in any such strategy.