Terms and Conditions of Employment
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move,
That the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.
The purpose of the regulations is to increase the national living wage rate and the national minimum wage rates on 1 April 2025. The regulations were laid in draft before Parliament on 4 February and approved by the other place on 17 March.
The Government are committed to making work pay. The plan to make work pay will tackle the low pay, poor working conditions and poor job security that have been holding our economy back for far too long. Earlier this month, the House approved passage of the landmark Employment Rights Bill, which will benefit more than 10 million workers in every corner of the country and deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. Some aspects of the Bill and accompanying legislation and guidance will not come into effect for some time as the Government continue to engage with stakeholders, businesses and trade unions on its implementation. When we took office last year, however, we committed to taking immediate action where we could, and on the minimum wage we have done so.
One of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government was the creation of the national minimum wage, which eliminated the extreme low pay that was blighting our country. We are proud to say that one of the first actions taken by this Labour Government within a month of last year’s general election was to overhaul the remit to the Low Pay Commission. For the first time, the remit now explicitly includes the cost of living as one of the key factors to be considered when making national living wage recommendations. We have begun the journey towards creating a genuine living wage, as well as extending that to all workers aged over 18 by moving towards a single adult rate.
Before turning to the precise details of the regulations, I want to extend my thanks to the Low Pay Commission. The commissioners and their officials have worked diligently and efficiently, particularly after the updates to the remit were made, and we were pleased to accept all their recommendations. That is testament to their social partnership model and expert analysis and engagement, which ensure that the Government can deliver on their ambitious agenda, but without adversely impacting on businesses, the labour market or the wider economy.
Turning to the detail of the regulations, which, after parliamentary approval, will take effect on 1 April, the national living wage rate, which currently applies to workers aged 21 and over, will increase from £11.44 to £12.21. That represents a rise of 77p or 6.7%, which is well above all measures and projections of inflation, therefore delivering real terms pay increases to an estimated 3 million workers.
We will also be delivering large increases to the other national minimum wage rates. The 18 to 20-year-old rate will increase by £1.40 from £8.60 an hour to £10 an hour. That is a record 16.3% increase for that age group. It means that a full-time worker on the 18-to-20 minimum wage rate will see their gross annual earnings increased by around £2,500 a year—a well-earned pay rise and a significant step towards parity with the headline rate. The national minimum wage rate for 18 to 20-year-olds will be equal to 82% of the national living wage in 2025, compared with 75% in 2024.
The minimum wage rate for workers above school leaving age but under 18 years old will increase from £6.40 to £7.55 an hour—a large rise of £1.15 or 18%. The same rise will apply to the apprenticeship minimum wage rate, which applies to apprentices aged under 19 or in the first year of their apprenticeship. Finally, the accommodation offset rate, which is the maximum daily amount that an employer can charge a worker for accommodation without it affecting their pay for minimum wage purposes, will increase by 6.7%, or 67p, to £10.66.
I draw Members’ attention to the comprehensive impact assessment, which the Department published alongside this legislation. As they may have noted, the impact assessment, which includes an equalities assessment, has received a green fit-for-purpose rating from the independent Regulatory Policy Committee. As I have touched on, we estimate that the increases to the minimum wage rates will deliver a direct pay increase for over 3 million workers, while an additional 4 million could benefit from the positive spill-over effects. The minimum wage has greatly reduced pay inequality in the UK, with the share of low-paid jobs in hourly terms estimated at 3.4% in 2024. That is a record low, and down from 21.9% in 1999.
But the work does not stop there, as we continue to build towards a genuine living wage and the extension of eligibility to workers aged between 18 and 20 by ending the discriminatory age bands. To that end, we will publish in due course a fresh remit to the Low Pay Commission, asking it to recommend minimum wage rates to apply from next April. As part of this, the Low Pay Commission will consult about the appropriate trajectory towards the single adult rate as we ensure that this is delivered without adverse impacts on youth employment as well as participation in training and education. Like the previous Labour Government, with their creation of the minimum wage over a quarter of a century ago, this Labour Government will be proud to leave a profound legacy for workers’ rights, because we are making work pay and we are proud to make more progress on this by supporting this instrument today. I commend the regulations to the House.
Yuan Yang
I very much agree with that sentiment. Young people are the future, and to ensure they get off to the best possible start in life, they need work that pays and enables them to live in stability, not concerned about paying the bills from day to day or month to month.
Most young people nowadays have to do a mixture of work and education or training to make ends meet. More than half of full-time students were working long hours in paid jobs in 2024, which is a significant rise from 2021, during the pandemic, when two thirds had no term-time employment. That has been driven by the escalating cost of living for young people, and especially rises in rent.
I want to quote a constituent of mine called Poppy, who is 20 years old and studies at the University of Reading. She says:
“Working part-time was never optional but rather a necessity... With my wages being so low…I found myself working 20-25 hours a week—leading me to miss some lectures and seminars throughout the month”.
I want to ensure that young people such as Poppy are able to study without worrying about how they are going to pay their bills. We also know that young people are less unionised, which means they have less bargaining power and less ability to fight against unfair terms or ask for pay rises, so it is even more important that we support them by raising the minimum wage.
In conclusion, it is essential that we make work pay, for the sake of our high streets, our living standards and our future—our young people. Poppy said:
“I personally cannot wait for the new minimum wage increase in April as it means I should be able to reduce my hours at work, giving me more time to focus on my studies”.
For people like Poppy, in my constituency and across the UK, the new deal for working people is transformational, and I am very glad to support today’s motion.
Employment Rights Bill
Judith Cummins ExcerptsWednesday 12th March 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2025 - large print - (12 Mar 2025)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I am a lifelong proud trade unionist.
Let me begin by thanking right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for their positive and constructive engagement over recent months. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for his superhuman work in steering this Bill through its Commons stages, and all the members of the Public Bill Committee for their thoughtful scrutiny.
When this Government took office, we promised the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation—nothing less than a new deal for working people. We said we would introduce a Bill to deliver that within 100 days, and we heard from Conservative Members who said we should not; and there were those who said we could not, but we did. Today, this House is taking another giant step towards making work pay. Let us be clear: too many working people have had to wait for too long for change. Over a decade, wages flatlined, in-work poverty grew, and growth was strangled. We inherited a failing economy that served no one, but today a Government of working people for working people are turning the tide.
This landmark Bill—pro-growth, pro-business and pro-worker—will put fairness back into work. Almost 9 million employees will be protected from unfair dismissal, up to 2 million will receive a right to bereavement leave and 1 million workers on zero-hours contracts will get the security they deserve. In three weeks’ time, over 3 million workers will see one of the biggest rises in the minimum wage on record. We said that we would make work pay, and this Government meant it.
Our vision is backed by many of the best businesses such as the 1,200 members of the Good Business Charter, from FTSE 100 companies to small and medium-sized enterprises. They prove that if you treat people well, you get the best out of them. They know that being pro-worker is not a barrier to success, but a launchpad to it. That is why this Bill takes the very best standards from the very best businesses and extends them to millions more workers. It is also why we proudly say that this is a pro-business and pro-worker Bill.
But we know that this will represent change, and I understand that many businesses want to work with the Government to get the details right. Our commitment in the weeks and months ahead to is do just that. My message is clear: this transformative package is a huge opportunity. It is a once-in-a-generation chance to reshape the world of work, to drive a race to the top on standards, to deliver growth and to build an economy that works for everyone.
We know that the Tories, in lockstep with Reform, will fight this every step of the way. Over two decades ago, they did the same with Labour’s minimum wage. They said then that it would destroy 2 million jobs, and now they are queueing up to vote against every single measure in this Bill, but the truth is that they were wrong then and they are wrong now. The only thing they are consistent on is that every time they have had the chance to deliver basic fairness for workers, they have voted against it. We know that they cannot be trusted to stand up for working people, but this Labour Government will.
For too long, people in Britain have been overlooked and undervalued, and our plan changes that: with jobs that are more secure and family-friendly; with women supported in work at every stage of life; with a genuine living wage and sick pay for the lowest earners; with further and faster action to close the gender pay gap; with rights that are enforced; and with trade unions that are strengthened.
In July, after 14 years of failure, the country voted for change. We promised to deliver a new deal, and today this Labour Government deliver on that promise with a once-in-a-generation transformation to build an economy based on fairness, to raise living standards, to drive growth and to deliver a better Britain for working people. I commend this Bill to the House.
Andrew Griffith
We welcome him to his place.
At least the Deputy Prime Minister is honest in her unwavering support for the trade union agenda. She is proud to walk in the footsteps of Neil Kinnock, Michael Foot and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), a conviction politician in the proper sense of the word, not a politician with convictions like the Labour Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Mike Amesbury). It makes a welcome change—[Interruption.] Well, he’s going. It makes a welcome change from a Prime Minister who pretends the Bill is about growth.
It is not easy for the right hon. Lady. It is always awkward being at odds with your boss: he says grow, you say slow; he wants fewer regulators, you create new ones. We all remember how in 2021 she herself was a victim of fire and rehire by a bad boss. Just wait until he sees the higher unemployment, higher prices and lower growth that the Bill will bring. [Interruption.]
Andrew Griffith
I’ll do that again: higher unemployment, higher prices and lower growth. No wonder the right hon. Lady is in favour of making it harder to be sacked.
This is a sad day for business and a bad day for Parliament. Business will have watched the last two days with dismay—[Interruption.] They will watch this with dismay as well, Madam Deputy Speaker. As they struggle with the Chancellor’s job tax and with the business rates hike about to hit next month, they see hundreds of pages of red tape heading their way. They will have seen the Minister yesterday, asked to name a single small business who supports the Bill, reel off the names of three large ones, two of which turned out not to support it anyway and the third was a quote from the chief inclusion officer at the Co-op. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) put it well yesterday when he said the Government plan to increase the number of small businesses by starting with large ones and making them smaller.
No one who cares about Parliament legislating well can be proud of how we have got here: a rushed Bill which was introduced at half the length to which it has now grown; an impact assessment which the Regulatory Policy Committee described as not fit for purpose; over 260 pages of amendments, few of which were scrutinized in Committee; and speeches in favour that have leaned heavily in support of the trade unions who stand to gain so much financially from the Bill.
But my final word goes to the real—[Interruption.] I can do some more. The final word goes to the real victims—[Interruption.] They do not want to hear it, Madam Deputy Speaker. The final word goes to the real victims of this Bill. Faced with this legislation, employers will take fewer risks on new employees. As a result, this Bill will hit young people disproportionately hard. They do not have the track record to rely on someone giving them the chance, a first step into the world of work.
Unlike so many Labour Members, whose first job was at a comfortable desk in TUC Congress House, my first job was at a supermarket. That company was able to take a risk on a young Andrew Griffith with no career experience; it was able to take that chance because it knew that I could not start work in the morning and then file an employment tribunal claim in the afternoon.
I know that for many Labour Cabinet members career experience on their CV is a sensitive topic, but that does not excuse what is a vindictive attack on the next generation. The truth is that Labour do not understand business. They do not understand what it takes to grow; they never have and they never will. Every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they started, and that is why we cannot support this terrible Bill.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has come to my attention that in a speech that I gave on 28 April 2014, recorded in column 614 of Hansard, on the subject of high-speed rail, I made a reference to my experience of using our local transport system in Greater Manchester when
“I worked as a solicitor in Manchester city centre.”—[Official Report, 28 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 614.]
I should have made it clear that, specifically, that was a reference to being at the time a trainee solicitor. This was an inadvertent error and, although the speech was over a decade ago, as it has been brought to my attention, I would like to formally correct the record, and I seek your advice on doing so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Member for giving advance notice of his point of order and for placing his correction on the record.
“Chapter 4A
Judith Cummins Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison Griffiths
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would the right hon. Lady be kind enough to declare her union interests from her entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I believe there is a £10,000 donation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. That is not a matter for the Chair, but a point for the Member.
Louise Haigh
I am very grateful for that point of order. I am, of course, very happy to declare my interests, as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, just as I am in the process of criticising a trade union.
Trade unions have been accused of using confidentiality clauses in settlements, which have the same chilling effect as NDAs. I have been told stories that should be on the front pages of newspapers, such as the man who was accused of rape, signed an NDA and was paid off. His alleged victim only found out years later that that had been the case while she was still working in the same workplace.
Media organisations such as ITN have come under recent criticism. As former employee Daisy Ayliffe said:
“Women who work for ITN have tried to report harassment and discrimination, but soon after doing so found themselves suddenly out of a job and bound by non-disclosure agreements.”
Another former employee of ITN, on seeing Daisy speak out, realised that his experience was far from unique and asked that I use parliamentary privilege today to speak about the confidentiality clause he was required to sign. He has asked that I do not use his name, so I will call him Mr B.
Mr B joined ITN in 2008 on a scheme called Enabling Talent, which aimed to recruit more disabled people into the organisation. He suffers from a condition called functional neurological disorder, which has a number of symptoms, including non-epileptic seizures or dissociate seizures, which he describes as zone-outs or blackouts. In 2008, ITN made a number of reasonable adjustments for him, including help with note taking, a key to the first aid room, and disability leave when required in order to avoid stress and fatigue-induced seizures. He states that at the time he could not fault his employer for the support it gave him.
Mr B left ITN to pursue his career elsewhere and returned in 2017, when he again declared his disability and made a request for similar adjustments. Despite multiple requests for the kind of help he had received before, none were forthcoming. Instead, he suffered severe bullying and discrimination, including pressure to disclose his disability widely to his colleagues. The situation got so bad that his zone-outs and blackouts became increasingly frequent. After suffering one seizure at work, he was required to apologise to those who had witnessed it. He was repeatedly accused of lying about his disability and told that his issues were nothing to do with his disability, despite having joined ITN on a disability inclusion scheme.
Mr B took ITN to tribunal, incurring tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs. He settled but was required to sign a confidentiality clause. His health has deteriorated so badly that he now uses a wheelchair 50% of the time and, following the loss of his job, he was, for a period, made homeless.
Alison Griffiths
I am sorry; I think we have made enough progress.
I urge the Government to reconsider, to withdraw the Bill and to work with businesses, unions and workers to create a fair and balanced approach that prioritises the political interests—
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have said it before, and I will say it again: due to the virtue of my last name, I am the only legitimate union Barron in this place, and I am absolutely proud of it.
It is an honour to speak on this Bill again, and I commend this Government for bringing it forward. We made a commitment to working people before the election, and we are following that through. I welcome the Government’s new clause on agency workers. In Corby we have more employment agencies than any other town in Northamptonshire. We now see that those who work in agency jobs will receive fair treatment in pay, working hours and job security, which is to be welcomed as we aim to create a better local economy for the people of Corby and East Northants.
Ms Creasy
I wish that the hon. Gentleman had been listening, because I just pointed out that dealing with the gender pay gap would bring £23 billion to our economy. That is exactly how we pay for better parental leave—it is a cost-neutral proposal.
A newsflash for those who have not worked it out: mothers are already paying for this childcare in their lower wages, opportunities and progression. Women’s salaries are hit by 33% after the birth of their first child. Women are doing 450 million hours of unpaid childcare in this country, which equates to £382 billion worth of work—twice as much as men. A consultation could explicitly look into these issues and at how we can share that cost and benefit fairly, so that both men and women can contribute equally to our society and look after their children equally. It could look explicitly at self-employed parents. After all, there are nearly a million self-employed dads in this country, who pay £1.1 billion in national insurance contributions. They do not get any parental leave at all.
We know that shared parental leave is not the answer. Only 2% of dads have taken it in the 10 years that it has been available, because it is not paid. That is why we must be explicit that any consultation must look at the pay that needs to be behind parental leave, as well as at protecting it. Those on the lowest incomes do not take shared parental leave at all. More shared parental leave has been claimed in London alone than in Wales, Scotland, the north-west and the north-east combined.
Above all, this is about our kids. God knows, we love them all dearly, but we can all understand why 20% of divorces take place in the first five years after having a child: because of the unequal situation that we put families in and the pressures that that creates—the mum and dad guilt. We have a choice in this place about whether we deal with mum and dad guilt, with the Government making a proper commitment with a proper timetable, and with proper involvement from Parliament and the Women and Equalities Committee.
To all those who will say, “Well, I struggled, and so should you,” I say that that is bad for the economy and bad for our kids. It means that fathers do not get the time to work out the quirks of their children, so mums end up being the ones who know how to cut the sandwiches. It means that mums end up doing more of the childcare and dads get pushed further away from their children. If this Government are serious about supporting families—I believe that they are—they need to show us the detail. That way, in every family, which come in all shapes and sizes, every parent—whether the father, the non-birthing parent or the mother—will have the time to be the best parent and contributor. That is why these policies are massively popular with Conservative and Reform voters—if only the Reform MPs were here to do something for men for a change.
This long overdue change will make a difference. I hope that Ministers are listening to why it matters to show a commitment to this, and I look forward to hearing to what they have to say in response to the new clause.
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2025
Crown Estate Act 2025.
Local Post Offices
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am imposing an immediate six-minute time limit so that everyone can get in.
Royal Mail Takeover
Judith Cummins Excerpts(3 months, 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 (Justin Madders)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the ongoing takeover of Royal Mail Group’s parent company, International Distribution Services plc.
Royal Mail is an iconic national institution, and this Government are committed to ensuring that it remains one. Since taking office in July, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and I have been clear that the Government will robustly scrutinise the proposed takeover of Royal Mail and ensure that there are safeguards for its future. While a takeover bid is still ongoing and subject to the relevant regulatory processes, the purpose of this statement is to update the House on the legally binding undertakings that have now been given to the Department for Business and Trade by the bidder, EP Group. I wish to be clear that this does not mark the conclusion of the takeover, and these undertakings will become effective only if the takeover goes through. Should the takeover complete, I am pleased to announce that the Department for Business and Trade has secured significant commitments to promote a long-term and financially sustainable future for Royal Mail in the United Kingdom.
It will be helpful if at the outset I set out where Royal Mail was at the time the takeover bid was announced. Before the bid, Royal Mail’s financial position was challenging. In its financial year 2023-24, Royal Mail recorded a loss of £348 million. That loss was in part due to a long-term decline in letters, and the significant fixed costs of the universal service delivery network. At the same time, Royal Mail has not met its quality of service targets set by the independent regulator, Ofcom. Royal Mail’s performance for the 2023-24 financial year resulted in Ofcom fining it £10.5 million. While the previous Government were happy to accept decline, this Government have worked closely with the buyer to secure significant commitments to deliver the transformation of Royal Mail into a sustainable service, and hard-wired in stronger protections for Royal Mail’s identity.
When the discussions with EP Group began, my Department’s objectives were: first, to strengthen the financial sustainability of this iconic and important British institution; and secondly, to protect the customers, workers and brand of Royal Mail. Today I can confirm that we have agreed a deed that customers and the workforce alike can welcome, with significant new commitments from the buyer to the Government. This deed is a clear example of the Government’s commitment to working hand-in-hand with business to generate reform and investment in public service. It is also yet another example of this Government fixing the foundations where the previous Government did not.
I am proud to announce to the House that we have agreed that the Government will have a golden share in Royal Mail. This golden share will ensure that the Department for Business and Trade now has an ability to prevent Royal Mail from moving its headquarters abroad or moving its tax residency without Government permission. I should make it clear that that is an entirely new measure that was not in place at the time of Royal Mail’s privatisation. Except in very limited circumstances, that measure will remain in place in perpetuity, including when there is a subsequent change in ownership of Royal Mail. I want to be clear that the agreement will not give the Government any role in the day-to-day running of the business—Royal Mail remains a private entity.
Not only have we agreed a golden share, but the EP Group has made a number of other commitments in addition, which I will set out at a high level. Those commitments include a commitment to prevent value extraction unless two tests are satisfied: first, a financial test that takes into account the debts of Royal Mail, so that value cannot be extracted if the company is heavily indebted; and secondly—this recognises a key concern of the public—a quality test to ensure that value is not extracted unless specific performance targets are met.
All businesses need to adapt and improve in order to respond to change, and Royal Mail is no different. Recognising that there is a need for Royal Mail to modernise, there is a commitment from EP Group to ensure that Royal Mail has the financial means to fund the transformation of its business in the three-year period following completion of the acquisition. In addition, EP Group has agreed to take an immediate step to strengthen Royal Mail’s balance sheet by removing a significant intra-group debt, which is currently due to the remainder of the International Distribution Services group. The agreed undertakings also include a commitment to ensure that Royal Mail retains ownership or access on fair terms to those assets necessary to meet the universal service obligation.
Next, EP Group has agreed to meet all the regulatory requirements that Royal Mail Group is subject to, including ensuring that it remains the universal service provider for as long as EP Group is in control. We all know—not just in this House, but across the UK—that Royal Mail is an iconic British brand, and that is why there is a commitment to the existing brand protections in place for Royal Mail. Royal Mail is a respected and revered operator, and not just in the UK—it has various international responsibilities at international fora and with the overseas territories. Those will be respected and continued, maintaining the UK’s prestigious international position.
EP has stated its long-term commitment to Royal Mail, and the discussions have demonstrated the wide range of areas of public interest in the work of the company, so I am also pleased to confirm that EP has committed to taking steps to facilitate discussions between any future owner of the business and the Government, be that in 10 or 20 years’ time. These commitments have been offered by EP Group to the Department on a voluntary basis; nothing has been offered in exchange.
I take this opportunity to thank EP Group. I am confident that we share the same objective of a reliable and financially sustainable universal service provider, while workers and consumers are placed at the heart of a sustainable Royal Mail. I am also pleased that, as well as reaching an agreement with the Department, EP Group has today announced that it has in-principle negotiated agreements with both unions representing the Royal Mail workforce. The Government welcome those agreements, and I am confident that the constructive and collegiate approach between the unions and the buyer can represent a restart for industrial relations in the Royal Mail Group.
I have set out some of the key commitments, but there are further commitments from EP Group that I do not have time to set out in full today. I am therefore placing copies of the deed in the Libraries of both Houses. I will keep the House informed as much as I can as the takeover progresses. I commend this statement to the House.
Justin Madders
I thank the shadow Minister for her comments, and I start by joining her in thanking all those postal workers who throughout the year—not just at this time of year, when it is particular busy, but 12 months a year—come rain or shine, sleet or snow, deliver those much-needed communications from friends, family and loved ones. I was pleased to be able to go to my own depot in Ellesmere Port last Friday. I will go to another one in my constituency, in New Ferry, this Friday. All hon. Members should be encouraged to make those visits, because they really show how much we appreciate the work that our postmen and women do.
The hon. Lady is right that the Royal Mail is a service that we all depend on. I agree that performance has not been good enough in recent years. That is why we have had a number of discussions with the company and with Ofcom about how we will get things back on track. That is why the agreement is so important, because the deal will get in the investment needed to try to drive up that performance.
I turn to some of the hon. Lady’s specific questions. On guarantees of service provision, the legislative framework is already there for the universal service obligation, and I see the takeover having no impact on that. It has not been part of the discussions—it is an entirely separate issue—but Parliament will have its say on that if needed. Next year, Ofcom will have a consultation on the universal service obligation. I think it is recognised that an awful lot of work is needed to bring standards up to the level that we would like, and one of the protections in the agreement will hopefully deliver on that.
On jobs guarantees, the hon. Lady will be aware that the general secretary of the Communication Workers Union has spoken positively about the agreement reached. He believes that sufficient assurances have been given on jobs. On employee engagement, she asked whether the employees will own the company. That is not the case, but they will have a say in governance in future as a result of an agreement between the Communication Workers Union and EP Group. That is to be ratified by the Communication Workers Union executive, but that will be a groundbreaking arrangement that we did not have previously. She also asked about tax residency in perpetuity, which is what the golden share does indeed intend to deliver.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I welcome the statement made by this hard-working Minister. I take it from the announcement that Mr Křetínský has cleared the investment screening tests that the Cabinet Office is responsible for. It would be useful to have that confirmed.
Let me press my hon. Friend about the universal service obligation. Is it his intention that beyond the initial five years he will seek six-day delivery and a universal service obligation in place for Royal Mail for as long as His Majesty’s Government retain the golden share?
Justin Madders
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his comments. The golden share is to deal with tax residency and headquarters being domiciled in the UK. Obviously, there will be discussions about the universal service obligation. We know that this is a fast-moving market, and that will be for determination by Ofcom some time next year.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
The Royal Mail has been plagued by issues for years, and my constituents do deserve better. A reliable postal service is essential for all of us, but particularly for rural businesses and those waiting for important NHS appointments.
Naturally, in communities like those I represent in Wiltshire, there are some serious concerns about what the statement might mean for the quality of rural services. Last Friday, I met with the brilliant posties in my constituency of Chippenham, some of whom have been in the job for nearly 50 years, who were rushed off their feet delivering Christmas cards. Spending time with them reminded me how important they are—they can often be the first people to notice that someone has not been to their door in days. They are the unseen champions of our community, particularly in rural communities where other people are not walking past. They reminded me that a reliable postal service is essential for our local communities. I therefore join hon. Members in thanking them for their dedication, specifically at this time of year.
Businesses depend on timely deliveries, and many older residents rely on our postal services for banking, utilities and keeping connected. Any weakening of the universal service obligation would disproportionately harm the rural areas of Wiltshire where alternatives are limited. Therefore, the Government and EP must give us a commitment that they will not water down the Royal Mail’s service at the public’s expense. With the Royal Mail’s universal service under review, it is particularly important for the Government to be clear about the future of these services with this new owner. I would be grateful if the Minister made it clear to my constituents at home that the number of delivery days will not be reduced as a result of this sale to EP Group and that any changes on the horizon will not be charged to the public purse.
My questions about the delivery standards are particularly important, given that we are in the middle of Christmas, and many millions of people rely on the Royal Mail, not least for that. One thing that is particularly concerning for us at the moment might well be —[Interruption.] I am sorry, I have one last thing. With it moving abroad—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but the Liberal Democrats get two minutes for their response and we are quite a while after that.
Justin Madders
I assure the hon. Lady that the universal service obligation is not contingent on this deal—that is an entirely separate matter for Ofcom to be considering—but a number of commitments that we have secured in this agreement will hopefully improve standards, which in any event have clearly not been as we would all want.
Justin Madders
A number of commitments have been made that were not previously in place, and there is no doubt that we are in a much better position than we were post privatisation. As I say, this groundbreaking deal between the unions and the company includes rights in terms of governance, a profit-sharing incentive and guarantees on job security. I am sure that Members will be pleased to hear that we really have made fantastic progress.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
For the final question from the Back Benches, I call Dave Robertson.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) is right to raise the issue of complaints, which I am sure all Members from across the House receive from constituents let down by failures to meet the universal service obligation. From speaking to posties, as I did today, it is clear that posties right across the country, just like my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), are proud of what they do. They are proud of the job that they do, proud of being part of the community, and proud of the identity that working for that iconic brand gives them. It is clear that they are not the ones who are letting the public down; that is down to the current board of the company, which is running the organisation into the ground. Today I spoke to a proud postie, who said that he feels the company is a national disgrace—that shows how far it has fallen under the current ownership. Can the Minister assure me that the new ownership will not be allowed to sink to the depths that the current ownership did under the guidance of the previous Conservative Government?
UK Supply Chains: Uyghur Forced Labour
Judith Cummins Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alexander
Let me first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for the consistency and focus that she has brought to this issue. It is not a new worry for her. I assure her that I shared that concern yesterday morning when I heard the reports and the allegations that were levelled in relation to tomato paste, and I also assure her that the Government will approach the company in question to try to establish more clearly the exact facts that underlie those deeply worrying reports.
I think we are again in complete agreement about the egregious character of the human rights abuses taking place in Xinjiang province. I am glad to say that the Prime Minister in his most recent meeting with President Xi Jinping, and indeed the Foreign Secretary in his recent meeting with his counterpart, specifically raised the issue of human rights in China, notwithstanding our willingness to engage directly with the Government of that country.
As for the work that we are doing, the formal position of the Government remains that we expect all companies to conduct business responsibly, in line with the OECD guidelines for multinational businesses on responsible business conduct and the UN guiding principles on business and human rights.
My hon. Friend mentioned the legislation that has been passed in the United States. In the United States, the European Union, Canada and Mexico, legislation has been introduced or is in the process of being introduced specifically for import bans to prevent such goods from entering their markets in the first place, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are reviewing the impact of those measures to inform what should be the UK’s approach.
Mr Alexander
I am in full agreement with my hon. Friend. For businesses to be able to invest and thrive, they need confidence in their supply chains, which is why the Government are establishing a new supply chains taskforce. The taskforce will work to assess where supply chains that are critical to the UK’s economic security and resilience, including those in the growth sectors identified in the industrial strategy, could be vulnerable to disruption. The taskforce will ensure that the Government work with business to address the risks, including by exploring wide-ranging policy solutions and other mitigations.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
May I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the urgent question, and welcome the Minister back to Parliament and to his place?
Food labelling and food safety are among the most important issues for our diet and for our health. They allow consumers to make informed choices, and to ensure that food is safe and consistent with consumers’ ethical and moral beliefs. I am very pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government will look at the impact of legislation in the US, the EU and other countries, particularly where it may involve import bans on products that have been produced using forced labour. May I press him to tell us the timetable for doing that review?
Export and Investment Guarantees
Judith Cummins Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
We now come to the three motions on export and investment guarantees. I will call the Minister to move the first motion and to speak to all three motions together. At the end of the debate, I will put the Question on the first motion and we will then take the remaining two motions formally.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
I beg to move,
That the draft Export and Investment Guarantees (Limit on Exports and Insurance Commitments) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 14 October, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this we will take the following motions:
That the draft Export and Investment Guarantees (Limit on Exports and Insurance Commitments) (No. 2) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 14 October, be approved.
That the draft Export and Investment Guarantees (Limit on Exports and Insurance Commitments) (No. 3) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 14 October, be approved.
Gareth Thomas
These orders are technical in nature and relate to the capacity of UK Export Finance—which is the operating name of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, the UK’s export credit agency—to support current and prospective exporters. As hon. and right hon. Members will know, UK Export Finance has a mandate to support UK exporters with finance and insurance, helping them to compete internationally. UK Export Finance, or UKEF for short, was established more than 100 years ago and is the world’s oldest export credit agency. Its support has proved crucial to British exporters throughout its existence.
UKEF helps exporters to win international contracts, to fulfil export orders, to create jobs and to get paid. Last year it provided £8.8 billion in finance to support UK exporters, and supported up to 41,000 jobs around the UK as a result. Some 88% of the businesses it supported last year were small and medium-sized enterprises. UKEF provides its finance at no net cost to the taxpayer; in fact, it generates a return for the Exchequer, with £705 million returned to the Treasury over the last three years.
The Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991, as amended in 2015, confers powers on the Secretary of State to provide finance that is conducive to exports, and to provide insurance in connection with overseas investments. Those powers are exercised and performed through UKEF. Subject to some limited exceptions, section 6(1) of the Act imposes a limit on the aggregate amount of financial commitments that can be made under those powers—in other words, the total size of UKEF’s financial portfolio. At present, the limit stands at £67.7 billion, expressed in special drawing rights. Special drawing rights are an accounting unit for international transactions and were created by the International Monetary Fund; their value is based on a grouping of five major currencies, including pound sterling, the US dollar and the euro. The sum equates to approximately £70 billion at today’s exchange rates.
Why are we seeking an increase? Well, the current limit has been in place since 2015, and UK Export Finance’s portfolio size is now drawing close to it. Were UKEF to reach its limit, it would have to pause its vital financing activity, which, in turn, would cut off its support to prospective exporters. I should note that, in practice, the size of UKEF’s portfolio is subject to a limit set by the Treasury. This limit, called the maximum commitment limit, must be lower than the statutory limit set out in legislation. I am therefore proposing these statutory instruments to increase the commitment limit in section 6(1), and to avoid the future risk of having to turn away applications for UKEF support.
Section 6 of the Act enables the Secretary of State, by order, to further increase the limit by up to £5 billion. The power to make such an order may be exercised on up to three occasions and has not been used before. I am therefore seeking approval of these three orders together, which would allow us to increase UKEF’s statutory commitment limit by £5 billion per order, for a total of £15 billion. Inflation since the limit was last amended and the increasing transaction sizes that the Department is supporting mean that the Department is now approaching that legal limit.
Laying these SIs together is about future-proofing UKEF and giving it sufficient legal capacity to provide certainty for its customers. Again, it is a decision for Treasury Ministers to then confirm the actual commitment limit under which the Department operates. After they have come into force, the three instruments taken together will increase the commitment limit to 82.7 billion special drawing rights, which converts to around £84 billion pounds at today’s exchange rates.
UK Export Finance is delivering an ambitious five-year business plan that aligns with this Government’s missions, supporting growth and prosperity for UK exporters and their communities across the country, and doing so at no net cost to the taxpayer, but its ability to do so will be at risk without the additional legal headroom that these instruments provide. These changes will therefore allow UK Export Finance to continue meeting its mandate in supporting exports and driving growth—something that I am sure those in all parts of the House will join me in welcoming. I commend these orders to the House.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I want to start by saying “Exporting is GREAT”, and UK Export Finance, as the Minister just outlined, has done a tremendous job over many decades in supporting great British exporters, so we support these changes to the export and investment guarantees. As the Minister said, we financed £8.8 billion in export support last year, and that helped 650 UK companies to fulfil their potential by growing their overseas sales.
Today, I would like to probe the Government’s attitude towards exports, and I would particularly like to hear the Minister put on record his support for free trade at this time. The UK is now in the enviable position that almost 50% of our products can now be exported tariff-free, thanks to the tireless work done under the previous Government to increase the number of markets that our exporters have access to. That compares with the EU figure of some 27%. Raising the level of exports to a target of £1 trillion would be truly tremendous for the growth of this country. It would support higher-skilled jobs and raise profitability, productivity and tax contributions, so in the view of the Opposition, the Government cannot do enough to support the growth of exports.
I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister about specific policies. Will he be continuing the previous Government’s programme of having trade envoys around the world helping with the export connections for our exporters? Are the Government planning to take forward the discussions between the previous Government and the previous Trump Administration on a free trade agreement with the US? Will the Government be taking forward the work that was done at state-by-state level to increase trade access for UK exporters into US states?
Turning to the specific measures in front of us today, has the Minister considered amending the Act itself so that the possibility could exist to increase resources by more than the 5,000 million special drawing rights that are currently covered by the legislation? The previous Act says that this mechanism can be used only three times, so I wonder what provisions the Minister has in mind for the next time the Government want to increase support to exporters through UKEF.
As far as other export initiatives are concerned, can the Minister confirm that he will continue to support the “Exporting is GREAT” campaign and the GREAT campaign generally, given the incredibly good feedback that they tend to get around the world? Lastly, can he confirm that he will remain on the side of our exporters, our wealth creators and the many businesses across this country that do so much to raise the prosperity of the United Kingdom?
Budget Resolutions
Judith Cummins Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Although the hon. Gentleman will be very grateful for the intervention, may I remind Members that time is tight?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, and I agree with him entirely. I am mindful of the tightness of time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Will the Chancellor reconsider the exemption list, to protect the vital services I mentioned, much as she reconsidered when it came to VAT on continuity of education allowance payments? We all understand how much money the Chancellor hopes to raise, but I ask today that she sets out a realistic plan to raise the money. What is her plan to grow the economy? GDP growth predictions are lower than inflation rise predictions, which effectively means the economy shrinking over the next five years.
Finally, I ask the Minister to set a firm date for the publication of the Government industrial strategy, so that businesses have stability, rather than being on the receiving end of the Chancellor’s smash-and-grab tax raid.
Oral Answers to Questions
Judith Cummins Excerpts(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds
I absolutely agree with the strengths that the hon. Gentleman identified; he will know that I visited Northern Ireland as the shadow Secretary of State, partly to make that point. We are responsible for the promotion of the defence trade, so the relationship with the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Defence is very strong. I will absolutely do as the hon. Gentleman requests.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
The Government have repeatedly stated that securing economic growth is their fundamental mission, and that is, of course, an entirely laudable aim, but the fact is that more red tape will have the opposite effect. In the light of the right hon. Gentleman’s plans to introduce radical new labour laws, what would he say in response to the Federation of Small Businesses, which has made it clear that firms are increasingly worried about the Government’s proposals, fearing that they will drive up the costs and risks of doing business and thereby reduce their competitiveness and financial stability?
Gareth Thomas
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election to this House. I gently say that he will have heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we have already consulted widely with the business community about our plans to improve rights for employees. We did that when we were in opposition and we have continued to do it in government. I am struck by the support that our plans have from small businesses and high street businesses, but we will continue to work with small businesses on the details of those plans.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
For too long, our high streets have been hostages to an outdated and damaging business rates system. Empty shopfronts and shuttered windows should never become the norm in our town centres. Small businesses in desperate need of a helping hand will have been deeply concerned not to see any mention of business rates system reform in the King’s Speech. Can the Minister assure us that business rates system reform is coming soon and that, when it does, it will be a comprehensive replacement of that damaging system?
Mr Alexander
My hon. Friend is already establishing herself as a powerful voice for all constituency interests in Clwyd East. Alas, the concerns that she raises are not limited to that constituency. That is why, as part of the broader resetting of our relationship with the European Union, we are determined to tackle barriers to trade such as those she describes in relation to farmers, including through the negotiation of a UK-EU veterinary agreement that will help to reduce unnecessary border checks.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I welcome the Minister back to the House and back to the Government Front Bench. On the final sitting day before recess, the Secretary of State slipped out an announcement that he expected trade talks to begin with a number of countries this autumn, and the Minister has just confirmed the intention to open talks with the European Union. When can we expect the Government to publish their negotiating objectives for scrutiny by the House ahead of those talks, as demanded by the Select Committee and committed to by the previous Government?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is right: the explosion of zero-hours contracts in this country has been shameful. Over 1 million people are now on zero-hours contracts, and one in five of those people report that they would like to be able to get more hours of work, so we are going to end the uncertainty of zero-hours contracts. We are going to make sure that work pays, and we are going to give those people a legal right to a contract that reflects the number of hours they regularly work over a 12-week period.
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his supplementary question. As I said, we are working closely with our colleagues across Government to make sure we have the right intelligence and can make the right decisions where we need to act. He will be aware that other countries are introducing tariffs and taking a range of measures. Our sectors are very different from those of other countries—we are not the same as the US or the EU—and we need to respond in the right way when it comes to electric vehicles. For example, 80% of the vehicles we manufacture in the UK are exported, so our challenges are different.
However, the hon. Gentleman is right to raise these important issues, including the need to look at critical minerals and supply chains, and at how we can ensure we are getting as many parts as possible from countries with which we want to have a different relationship. That is why we have set up things such as the solar taskforce to ensure that when it comes to solar panels, for example, we are using the supply chains as best we can to make sure there is not a global monopoly and that we are economically secure as a country.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
What we have this morning is another chapter in the growing theme of what the Government said before the election and what they are doing after the election being entirely different things. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked in May about reliance on Chinese EVs undercutting British workers and leaving us exposed, but by July she was talking about the benefits of trade with China. What we have seen in this Chamber this morning is that, while the rest of the world—the United States, Canada, the European Union—is acting on Chinese dominance in the EV market, the United Kingdom Government continue to dither. What is it to be: clear action on behalf of the UK automotive sector, or continued dither and failing to make a decision?
Jonathan Reynolds
I hope you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to pay tribute to my hon. Friend after what his community has been through, and the incredible way that he stepped up to represent that community. That is something we would all like to acknowledge.
The points that my hon. Friend makes are right: small businesses, entrepreneurs and start-ups are essential to our economic success, in Southport and in every part of the UK, and the support we will give them covers advice, guidance and training. On his point about skills, that is why we have established Skills England. If we want entrepreneurs to take real risks with their own property and income, we must give them stability. We cannot change policy every year; we cannot elect Liz Truss as Prime Minister and expect people to take those risks. The stability and consistency we will bring is as important as the policy environment we will create to do exactly what my hon. Friend says.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
The introduction of the minimum wage was one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government, but for too long the UK’s labour market enforcement system has been fragmented and ineffective. That is bad for workers and bad for the majority of businesses that want do to the right thing and comply with the law. That is why we will create a fair work agency to bring together employment rights enforcement, including of the minimum wage.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members that these are topical questions, so can we have short questions and short answers?
Sir David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the question about a banking hub in his constituency. As he will have heard in answers that I gave earlier, reform of the business rates system to tackle some of the egregious disincentives in respect of the need to invest in our high streets and the competition from online giants is something we took seriously in opposition and continue to take seriously in government. Colleagues in the Treasury are working hard to bring forward proposals to reform the business rates system.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
UK Steel Manufacturing
Judith Cummins Excerpts(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martin Vickers
I thank Mr Speaker for granting the urgent question. I will ignore the Minister’s political comments and focus on what is more important: the future of thousands of workers, in particular at the Scunthorpe works, part of which falls within my Brigg and Immingham constituency and where many hundreds of my constituents work.
There have been widespread media reports suggesting that coke will stop being imported from October, which would mean production would stop in Scunthorpe by Christmas. There are rumours concerning the fact that employees will be given notice very soon. That is obviously creating great anxiety among those directly employed by British Steel and those in the supply chain, which in northern Lincolnshire extends to many thousands of people and many businesses.
I accept that much of this is media speculation, but if you and your family are reliant on an income from British Steel or a business that supports the sector, it is a very worrying time. Many people who have worked in the steel industry all their lives, and people who know about the market for steel, have a genuine concern that turning off the blast furnaces would see the end, or at least the beginning of the end, of steel manufacturing, certainly in Scunthorpe and possibly more widely. If we allow Scunthorpe’s furnaces to close, we will become more dependent on world markets, and effectively the best outcome that can be delivered from that is Scunthorpe ending up rolling steel produced in countries across the world, which would leave this nation vulnerable to price and supply volatility. Unions have said that that would be devastating. Charlotte Brumpton-Childs, a GMB national officer, has been quoted as saying:
“Early closure of the blast furnaces at Scunthorpe would be devastating for the community and workforce”
—and so it would.
“Unions have been assured throughout the process that the blast furnace operations would continue throughout the construction of an electric arc furnace. There has been no consultation over an early closure.”
Indeed, when the Minister visited Scunthorpe earlier this year, she said—according to the Scunthorpe Telegraph, so it must be true—that the UK needs to maintain capacity to produce primary steel. Is that the Government’s policy?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has exceeded the two minutes allotted to him. I do not know whether he wants to give us one final sentence.
Martin Vickers
I will bring my remarks to a conclusion, if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, by saying that if the UK is to maintain a domestic steel manufacturing capacity, the Government must accept that there will always be a burden on the taxpayer.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
“British steel is integral to growth and prosperity”.
Those are not my words, but the words of the now Prime Minister less than a year ago.
“The drive for green steel must mean more jobs, not fewer.”
Again, those are not my words, but those of the now Secretary of State less than a year ago. During the election campaign, he said:
“We cannot…lose the ability to make primary steel.”
But now we see, quite clearly, that Labour’s plans for decarbonisation do in fact mean de-industrialisation, and that the drive for green steel will mean fewer jobs, not more. Under the last Labour Government output fell by 47%, and, similarly, the promises that this Government made just weeks ago to steelworkers in Scunthorpe, Port Talbot and Teesside, and across the country, have been broken.
For weeks the Government have allowed rumour and speculation about the future of British Steel to run rife, while thousands of workers question whether they will have jobs by Christmas. Contrary to what the Minister has said, when we were in government we worked to deliver a more sustainable, long-term future for the steel industry across the United Kingdom, including Wales, through our £500 million commitment to building an electric arc furnace in Port Talbot. Now we risk being the only G7 economy without the ability to produce virgin steel.
I ask the Minister the following questions. Has British Steel indicated to the Government that it will halt its import of coking coal later this year? If so, when did the Government become aware of that? Are they committed to seeing electric arc furnaces in Scunthorpe? What discussions has she had with the owners of British Steel about the possibility that it will switch to foreign imports from China to fulfil its supply chain obligations here in the United Kingdom? What meetings has she had with stakeholders, including Ben Houchen and the Welsh Government, regarding the impact of future announcements on other steelworks across the United Kingdom, including on primary steel production? Communities and supply chains across the United Kingdom need certainty from this Government.
Sarah Jones
I thank my right hon. Friend for his important question. We believe very firmly that a successful steel industry is critical to a vibrant and secure future. Crude steel production in the UK has declined by over 40% since 2010; that is a great shame, and we will be trying to reverse it. Virgin steel is incredibly important, which is why we have the £2.5 billion fund. We are looking at direct reduced iron production and other possibilities for the UK. We are working on it at pace, and I am happy to talk further about our thoughts.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The steel industry has been left in a mess after years of mismanagement. The abandonment of the industrial strategy by the previous Government has been a disaster right across our economy, but nowhere more so than in strategic heavy industries such as steel, which face many complex and interconnected challenges. We can all agree on the vital importance of steel production, whether that is in terms of national security or of providing the materials that we need for a green economy. It is equally clear that the steel industry needs to be supported to move towards greener methods of production and a more sustainable footing, while ensuring that jobs are protected.
The sector desperately needs the certainty of a new industrial strategy. Can the Minister give a clear timeline for exactly when we will see that industrial strategy? Can she confirm that when the Industrial Strategy Council is rebooted, it will be placed on a statutory footing through legislation so that it is properly empowered to support our industries in the long term?
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The hypocrisy of this debate is utterly extraordinary. Everybody agrees that steel is of strategic national importance, yet the obsession with net zero of both main parties, led by the Conservatives, is leading to the removal of our blast furnaces by both British Steel and Tata. That obsession is killing our steel industry and steel jobs, and leading to our inability to produce primary steel. Over 75% of all new steel generating capacity in the world is in Asia, and over 90% of that is produced in blast furnaces. Our obsession with net zero—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Member is coming to his question.
Richard Tice
Given the obsession with net zero, will the Minister guarantee that if Tata is subsidised with more than £500 million to produce new electric arc furnaces, the money will be linked to the construction as opposed to Tata taking the money early and then not building the furnaces?