Harland & Wolff

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Bob Blackman

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations and questions. It was really important to us that we keep all four yards together—there had been an assessment that, for understandable reasons, the Belfast yard was more commercially valuable, so there was a real chance that any unstructured rescue package could have lost the two Scottish yards. There were question marks about those yards in particular, so keeping the business together and protecting the future of those workers was hugely important to us, and I am delighted that we have been able to achieve that.

The job guarantees for the non-Belfast yards will last for two years. The guarantee is for 90% of the overall job numbers, simply to provide the usual degree of flexibility in running that business, but that guarantee covers the majority of the workforce and keeps them in place. The deal also comes with investment in those Scottish yards, so whatever the future holds, those yards will be even more competitive and more able to bid for the kinds of contracts that will secure the long-term prosperity we are all seeking. I am always genuinely willing to work with colleagues across any part of the UK to secure the kind of outcome we have achieved today, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising that.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

As someone who has consistently and regularly called for more shipbuilding to take place in the UK rather than be exported, today’s statement is good news, and I congratulate the Secretary of State on announcing this decision. He has clearly said that further orders have been added as a result of this deal. What further defence and—much more importantly—commercial opportunities are there for Harland & Wolff to acquire contracts from across the world, rather than building elsewhere?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s aspirations and recognise his calls for UK shipbuilding to have a higher priority in future than it has in the past. To be specific on what I was saying in the statement, there has been a revision to the value of the fleet solid support contract; it has required a little bit of additional support—but not greatly and on commercial terms—in order to deliver it. There are not promises of additional work packages on top of the contractual agreements made by the previous Government, but because Navantia UK is such a world-renowned expert builder of shipping of all sizes, as well as the investment that comes with this deal and the more competitive nature of the yards in future, there are genuine grounds for optimism. I see real opportunities in fabrication and maintenance, but particularly in energy. I also think that a little bit of competitive diversification in the military shipbuilding sector’s supply chain is welcome, creating better value for money in procurement. Across the board, this is a positive story for Harland & Wolff and its employees, but as the hon. Gentleman has described, it is also a positive story for UK shipbuilding.

Stellantis Luton

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Bob Blackman

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I very much believe that industrial strategy is essential to the future of the United Kingdom. I hoped that this would be supported on a cross-party basis, and I see no reason why Conservative Members, or anyone else, would not support an industrial strategy. Indeed, some Conservative Members, or their predecessors, held positions similar to the one I hold. They got this and believed in it, and did quite a good job in some difficult circumstances within the Conservative party. Yes, an industrial strategy is essential to this Government, and I hope the whole House will get behind our plans for Invest 2035. The response from industry has been superb. It is what we need as a country, and we should all get behind that.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is clearly a sad day for Luton and workers there, but the Secretary of State must remember that this is not just about Luton but about the whole car manufacturing industry, and workers up and down the country in that industry will be saying, “Am I going to be next?” Will the Secretary of State set out his position on conversations that he is having with other car manufacturers to ensure that the same thing does not happen to them?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I reiterate the points I made in my statement: this is about the whole sector, and while we walked in to find a certain position with this plant when we formed the Government on 5 July, we recognise that there are also sector-wide issues. That is why we have been having these conversations, and why we are willing to show pragmatism and change some of the policies we have inherited to ensure that they are working for British industry.

The hon. Gentleman asked about specific conversations. As I said in my statement, just last week we had a meeting with all the major UK-based original equipment manufacturers and wider representatives of the sector to talk about the flexibilities that might be required to make this policy work in a way that does not undermine British industry, but gets us to a common destination for industry, Government and consumers together. That is exactly what we are doing, and whatever Conservative Members feel about the previous Government’s policy, I ask them to get behind that ambition.

Port Talbot Transition Project

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Bob Blackman

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for her question. Let me say again that I wish that we were in a position to do even more, but I can tell hon. Members that this is the maximum improvement that was possible within two months. I know that in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s people are seeking more than anything else a recognition that steel is not a sunset industry. It is vital to the future; it is not the case that it should be in inevitable decline in the UK. Indeed, we are an outlier in terms of the size of our steel industry among comparable G7 and OECD countries. This could be and should be a very positive story, and I am honestly confident that we can deliver that in future.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions procurement, and over countless years we have had statements and new strategies for steelmaking. Will he set out his plans to secure a long-term order book for steelmaking in this country, so that investors can make sure that they get value for money as well as the taxpayer? Equally, how will he endeavour to use the public purse to purchase British steel, while at the same time encouraging the export of British steel to other parts of the world?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question and very much agree with him. As the shadow Secretary of State, I avidly read the statistics that the Department published about UK content in domestic steel procurement. We must recognise that it is usually relatively high, but only in the sectors where we are producing particular grades of steel. Part of the strategy has to look at future demand, not just for what we already produce, but in terms of gaps and business opportunities. If we are improving the business environment, we need not just to help incumbent producers in the United Kingdom transition, but bring in new entrants, creating more competition in the market. I can see that there is significant demand in the market. It is the market that is driving the demand for green steel. I have no concerns about the future order book; it is the business environment taking advantage of that demand that this strategy needs to address.

Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Bob Blackman

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 27th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I am delighted to rise for the last time on Report in support of a group of amendments. My hon. Friend the Minister introduced them at length, so I will keep my remarks to the pertinent points. I thank him and the officials for all their work in getting us to the point of these detailed amendments. I am sure that all would agree that it has been a long and almost tortuous journey to identify the different issues with clause 7, but we have worked patiently and appropriately with the LGA, Crisis and, in particular, Shelter to resolve the issues such that everyone now supports the amended clause 7, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) pointed out.

As I said earlier, we did not want a change in the law to put priority-need families in an even worse position than they were already in. We wanted to enable single homeless people, and others who were not currently owed a statutory duty, to be given help and advice and an offer of suitable accommodation. At present, that accommodation will almost certainly be in the private sector, but it is up to local authorities to establish whether they can find a social rented property to provide for such people.

I particularly welcome amendments 20 and 21. As we heard from the Minister, in Committee there were representations—not least from the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who kicked off on the issue—about the scope of what is now clause 12 in relation to the suitability of offers in the private sector. Ideally, local authorities would inspect and approve every single offer to every potential tenant, but during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill we decided that the cost to them would be beyond what was reasonable. We therefore focused on priority need, and, indeed, vulnerable people. I am delighted that the Minister has found a way of extending the provision to all those people, not least pregnant women.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have all managed to make this part of the Bill sound very technical, but it seems to me that what it basically means is that the quality of private rented homes offered to families will improve, which is something that a great many people want to happen. Is that the hon. Gentleman’s understanding as well?

[Bob Blackman]

Obviously, we do not want families or individuals who are reaching a crisis point in their lives, having become homeless, to be placed in completely unsuitable accommodation, or with rogue landlords who are unsuitable people to be offering accommodation in the first place, and it should be the duty of local authorities to ensure that that does not happen. The amendments will ensure that the current position is corrected for the benefit of society. Ideally, no one would ever be offered unsuitable accommodation, but, as I think we all recognise, that is sometimes the case.

Clause 7 deals with

“an applicant’s deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate”.

A balance needed to be struck. As the Bill’s promoter, I must make it abundantly clear that homeless people will not be able to just turn up to their local housing authority and say, “You have a duty to find me somewhere to live”, and then fold their arms and wait for it to happen. They will have a duty to co-operate with the plan and carry out the actions required under it, and if they fail to do so, the housing authority will be able to terminate its duty. So there are duties on both sides, which must be right.

Equally, however, I do not want applicants to be unfairly penalised for some minor discrepancy. For example, if an applicant missed an appointment because of a need to visit a doctor or hospital, or as a result of some other commitment, it would be unfair and unreasonable for a local authority to penalise that individual. As the Minister has explained, the review process will be tightened to ensure that people receive written notices and are given an opportunity to review any unfair decision. That strikes the right balance, ensuring that applicants can receive a service—help and advice, and an offer in the private or socially rented sector—while also requiring them to take actions themselves.

I am grateful to the Minister for his time and forbearance, particularly in respect of that issue, which has occupied a substantial amount of time for all concerned. The compromise that has been reached will improve the Bill yet further and ensure that all people who have a priority need, and indeed those who do not, are secured private rented accommodation under these new homelessness relief duties. It will also ensure that those additional suitability checks will be carried out by the local housing authority to ensure that the property is safe and well managed. On that basis, I trust that all hon. Members will support these and the other amendments that the Minister has brought forward, so that we have a suitable package of measures to present to the other place, it will see the wisdom of our lengthy debates and close scrutiny of these proposals, and view them as a package of measures that together improve the lot of those people who are homeless.