(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons Chamber
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
On behalf of the people of Erewash, I give thanks to His Majesty the King for his Gracious Speech to the entire nation yesterday. This King’s Speech recognises the simple fact that Britain cannot afford to leave its future at the mercy of global markets, hostile states or instability abroad.
For too long, Governments assumed that the hand of the free market would always act in Britain’s interests. For too long, we outsourced vital industries without considering the long-term consequences and underrated the ability of our businesses to export physical goods to the world. We have been globally pigeonholed strictly as a post-industrial service economy. When dictators spark conflict abroad, British families feel the impact through rising bills and a falling standard of living. Working people in Erewash know that all too well. Britain has been left exposed because we failed to build our own energy resilience.
Ilkeston in Erewash is proud of its iron manufacturing heritage, yet we have watched industries like iron and steel decline as production has moved overseas in search of cheaper labour and lower standards. Steel is not just another commodity; its manufacture is strategic infrastructure, in and of itself—infrastructure that underpins our national defence capabilities. That is why it is unacceptable that British Steel has been let down by overseas owners who do not act in Britain’s best interests. We cannot outsource our national security any longer.
Harriet Cross
I completely agree that we must protect British industries such as steel and oil and gas refining—they are all vital. The carbon tax is a reason why these industries are declining and moving overseas. From what the hon. Member is saying, it feels like he agrees that we should get rid of the carbon tax. Is that correct?
Adam Thompson
I am not sure the hon. Member and I are necessarily on the same page. I was focusing purely on the renationalisation of the steel industry, which is an important part of the King’s Speech. Indeed, in this King’s Speech, the Government have recognised that markets alone cannot protect the national interest. Sometimes the state must step in to safeguard jobs and to keep Britain safe. Nationalising British Steel means protecting almost 100,000 jobs from unfair foreign competition. I am proud that this Government are going to bring British Steel fully back into public ownership.
I have spoken to many businesses and business owners in Erewash, and they report that they have struggled since we left the European single market. They have faced mountains of paperwork and massive delays at our borders. These hurdles do not just frustrate exporters; they directly impact their ability to turn a profit. I am glad that in the European partnership Bill we seek to solve that problem, by streamlining trade and making it quicker, cheaper and simpler to do business with Europe.
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Public Bill Committees
Adam Thompson
Q
Edward Woodall: I tried to give some examples earlier of how businesses might invest. I suppose the first question is: where are the multipliers set? I would encourage the Government to use the flexibility to enable the best possible investment. As the example identified, if you have the multiplier set at a lower rate, the business is starting to save thousands of pounds. That is an opportunity for them to think, “Right, I can update the CCTV system. I might be able to add some new security measures in store.” The Bill can facilitate that investment. I should also say that, with the overall pressures on retailers at the moment, the cumulative burden is very big. They also might have to use that money just to keep operating and managing the costs that go up as well. This Bill can facilitate investment, but the Government have to think about the overall investment environment for retailers, not just through the rates bill by itself.
Harriet Cross
Q
Edward Woodall: You are right that our estimation of the cost of the Budget was £666 million, and we wrote to the Treasury to set that out. As I said, I think the Bill provides more structure and permanency in the support for retail, hospitality and leisure relief. I cannot comment on how much it will do, because I do not yet know where the multipliers will be set, but I think there is an opportunity to make the investment environment for businesses better with this Bill. We are not just looking at one single relief; we are looking at it over a period of time and we have the opportunity to discuss how that multiplier is set. One way in which the Bill could facilitate that better is through the procedure for the setting of the lower multiplier, which is currently by negative resolution in the Bill documents. That might want to move to an affirmative resolution so that we can have a debate on whether it goes up or down in the future, so that we can have a closer discussion on those things.