Parental Leave Review
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day 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, I will make a statement on the Government’s manifesto commitment to review the system of entitlements to parental leave.
This Government are dedicated to delivering more for working families, and our plan to make work pay is central to achieving that, with the mission to grow the economy, raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all. It will help people to stay in work, improve job security and boost living standards, which includes helping working parents and supporting them to balance their work and home lives.
Parental leave and pay entitlements play a key role in that. We know that the arrival of a child, whether through birth or adoption, is a transformative time in a family’s life. We also know that the current parental leave system does not support modern, diverse working families as well as it could. Parents’ groups and campaigners have long argued that our paternity leave is too short and compares poorly with other countries. While shared parental leave is available to families where fathers and partners want to take a longer period of leave, evidence shows that take-up is very low, with the parental rights survey reporting that 1% of mothers and 4% of fathers use this entitlement. The survey also showed that 35% of fathers do not take paternity leave for financial reasons.
We are committed to improving the parental leave system and are already taking action. Improving the system will have the added benefit of increasing workforce participation by helping employers to fill vacancies and will contribute to increased productivity, benefiting the economy.
The Employment Rights Bill is one vehicle through which we are improving the parental leave system. The Bill makes paternity leave and parental leave day one rights, meaning that employees will be eligible to give notice of their intent to take leave from their first day of employment. It contains a number of other measures that will improve the support that working families receive. It will put in place legislation that makes it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave and mothers who come back to work for a six-month period after they return, except in specific circumstances. It will also make flexible working the default, except where it is not reasonably feasible, and requires that all large employers produce action plans that contribute to closing the gender pay gap.
I am pleased to announce that the Government are going further and taking another step forward in delivering improvements for working families. I am pleased to launch the parental leave review today, fulfilling our commitment in the plan to make work pay to review the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports working families. The review is part of delivering the plan for change, and links two of the Government’s missions: kick-starting economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity. The work of the review will support the Government’s commitments to raise living standards and give children the best start in life, and links to work being undertaken to alleviate child poverty. It presents a much-needed opportunity to consider our approach to the system of parental leave and pay, giving due consideration to balancing costs and benefits to both businesses and the Exchequer. I welcome the opportunity today to provide the House with more detail on the review.
The review will be co-led by the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Work and Pensions, the two Departments with the main responsibility for the current parental leave framework. There will, however, be close working across Government to deliver this review to reflect the wide influence the parental leave system has on policies in other Departments.
The current system has grown up gradually over time. The first maternity arrangements were set out in the Factory and Workshop Act 1891, which introduced the idea that women who work in factories cannot work for four weeks after giving birth. Subsequent entitlements have been added to support specific groups as needs have emerged, which has created a framework that does not always work cohesively as a whole. This piecemeal approach to parental leave and pay means that the system has never had an overarching set of objectives that it should deliver. This review presents an opportunity to reset our approach to and understanding of parental leave and pay, and what we want the system to achieve.
We will use the review to establish what Britain needs from a parental leave and pay system to support our modern economy and deliver improvements for working families. We have set out four objectives as our starting point, which we intend to test as we progress the review to ensure we are truly reflecting the needs of the nation.
Our first objective is to support the physical and mental health of women during pregnancy and after giving birth to a child. Our second objective is to support economic growth by enabling more parents to stay in work and advance in their careers after starting a family. This will focus on improving both women’s labour market outcomes and tackling the gender pay gap.
Our third objective is to ensure that there are sufficient resources and time away from work to support new and expectant parents’ wellbeing. This will include facilitating the best start in life for babies and young children, and supporting health and development outcomes. Our fourth objective is to support parents to make balanced childcare choices that work for their family situation, including enabling co-parenting, and providing flexibility to reflect the realities of modern work and childcare needs.
Three cross-cutting considerations will also be factored into our review. The first is to build a fair parental leave system between parents within a family, different types of parents and parents with different employment statuses. The second consideration is to balance costs and benefits to businesses and the Exchequer, as well as to examine how the system can support economic opportunities for businesses and families. As part of this, the review will consider opportunities to make the process surrounding parental leave simpler for both businesses and parents. The final cross-cutting consideration focuses on improving our society—for example, by supporting the child poverty strategy, and by shifting social and gender norms, including around paternal childcare.
All current and upcoming parental leave and pay entitlements will be in the scope of the review. This will enable us to consider how the parental leave and pay system should operate as a complete system to improve the support available for working families. This broad scope means that the review will consider the individual existing entitlements, and how best to ensure improvements can be delivered for working families, as well as related wider issues and themes. For example, the review will consider whether the support available meets the needs of other working families who do not qualify for existing statutory leave and pay entitlements, such as kinship carers and self-employed parents. It will also consider how the pay system works more broadly.
This will be an evidence-based review that reflects and considers the perspectives and experiences of those who engage with the parental leave and pay system. We welcome views from, and intend to engage constructively with, a wide range of external stakeholders, including groups such as trade unions that represent both parents and families, and employers or employer representatives. There will be opportunities for stakeholders to contribute views and expertise throughout the review, including through a call for evidence, which launches today. This call for evidence seeks initial evidence specifically in relation to the objectives that will set the foundation for what we want our system to deliver.
The review launches today. We expect it to run for a period of 18 months. The Government will conclude the review with a set of findings and a road map, including next steps for taking any potential reforms forward to implementation. This is an important step forward to ensure that our workplaces are fit for the 21st century, and I commend this statement to the House.
Justin Madders
I take it that the shadow Minister is not in support of the review. May I correct him on a few points? Of course it is not a coincidence that this is being announced today; our manifesto was clear that we would launch the review within one year of taking office, and, of course, this week we do celebrate that astounding election victory. On his point about statutory paternity pay, it is £187.18. We know from representations that we have already received that many do not think that that is the right level. He mentioned how Tony Blair and Gordon Brown refused to open this box, but it was their Government who gave us the right to statutory paternity pay and a number of other family-friendly rights, of which the shadow Minister himself has taken advantage.
I think we know where the Conservative party stands on these issues when their leader says that maternity pay has gone too far. I do not quite know what she meant by that, but I think it means that the Conservatives would be rolling back some of the well-earned gains in family-friendly policies.
The shadow Minister, as I would expect, does not miss an opportunity to mention the Employment Rights Bill. May I suggest that he has a word with his shadow Secretary of State who clearly has not read it? I refer to his recent open letter to businesses in which he mentioned a number of issues with the Bill. First, he complained that we are creating the fair work agency, conveniently forgetting that in both the 2017 and 2019 Conservative party manifestos, there was a similar pledge to create a single enforcement body. He referred to an introductory measure on electronic industrial action balloting. The Conservatives, of course, will be big fans of electronic voting given the number of leadership elections in which they have taken part in recent years. The shadow Minister needs to inform his shadow Secretary of State that that is not in the Bill. I do not know where he thinks that has come from. We are going to introduce electronic balloting, but it is not in the Employment Rights Bill, because we already have existing powers to implement it.
In that open letter, the shadow Secretary of State mentions, most curiously, that the Bill will include
“a trade union ‘right to roam’”.
I do not know if he was searching for a new mobile phone contract at the time, but no such right exists.
The shadow Minister talked about the effects on appointments, but he needs to keep up to date: the latest Lloyds business barometer says that business confidence is now at a nine-year high and that 60% of firms expect higher staffing levels in the next year. That is a sign that this Government are getting things done.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is great to see so many hon. Members, with almost every party represented but one: there are four empty seats where the Reform UK MPs sit. They like to bang on about family values, but when it comes to actually standing up for dads and for parents, they are nowhere to be seen.
I thank the Minister for acting on the importance of shared parental leave. On paternity leave, as someone who had a caesarean section, I was so grateful to my husband’s employers for granting him more than two weeks’ leave; as everyone knows, mothers are not meant to lift even a kettle for six weeks after a c-section, which makes things impossible. However, we also know that not everybody is that fortunate, and that is especially true for self-employed people. The Women and Equalities Committee took evidence on parental leave and heard that nearly a third of self-employed dads and other parents did not take a single day’s leave following the birth of their child, so how will this review ensure that self-employed parents’ needs will be taken into account?
Justin Madders
I thank the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee for her contribution. She raises an important point and we are studying her Committee’s recent report on the issue with interest. It is important that we look at how people in different forms of employment are able to take advantage of parental leave, in one form or another. That is important not just for providing physical assistance in the circumstances that my hon. Friend mentioned, but because the parent should be there, if they can, to bond with the child in those early weeks, and the review will definitely consider that.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to the much-needed review on parental leave. Every child deserves the best possible start in life and the opportunity to flourish, no matter their background or personal circumstances. Too often, parents struggle on inadequate parental pay and without good enough access to shared leave. Childcare costs are eye-watering, and the balance between family life and work has only become harder to strike.
The Liberal Democrats have been calling for an overhaul of the parental leave system, to give parents a genuine choice about how they manage their responsibilities in the first months of their child’s life. If I could gently correct the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), it was the Liberal Democrats who were proud to introduce shared parental leave in government. However, years later, millions of parents are still being denied the choice to spend more time at home, with around a quarter of fathers ineligible for paternity pay.
As we welcome this review into parental leave, I urge the Government to look more broadly into the prevalent inequality in caring responsibilities. What steps are they taking to support the millions of family carers who are looking after disabled or elderly relatives and who have no paid leave at all? Will they commit to a similar review into provision for unpaid carers and to make carer’s leave paid? Will they commit to reviewing the needs of carers and those of the families who have taken on kinship caring responsibilities? I welcome that commitment in the statement today, but do the Government plan to introduce statutory kinship care leave?
We call on the Government to use the review to finally deliver meaningful reforms that address the long-standing concerns of carers and their loved ones, as well as making changes to the circumstances of working families that can make parenting a joy rather than a burden, and end the dilemma of having to choose between work and family.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The gov.uk website, which has not been updated since 8 May, states that the Prime Minister negotiated the 25% steel tariff down to zero, but that is not right, is it? Steel faces a tariff of 25% today and runs the risk of a 50% tariff being imposed next month. Will the Minister take this opportunity to commit to updating the website, updating this House and updating steelworkers on the state of the negotiations?
Mr Alexander
I am very happy to consider the issues that the hon. Lady raises in relation to the website, but I can assure her that, whether it is the Minister for Industry or the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the Government are in constant dialogue with the British steel industry. We will introduce a steel strategy, unlike her predecessors, and we have put serious money behind it. Thanks to the economic prosperity deal with the United States, the UK was the only country to be made exempt from the 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium that other countries around the world now face.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have long called for a closer trading relationship with Europe after the disastrous negotiations by the previous Conservative Government. We welcomed last month’s new trade agreement, including an agrifood deal establishing a UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary zone. The EU is our largest agrifood market, but since Brexit exports are down by 21% and imports are down by 7%. The introduction of an SPS agreement will provide welcome relief to many businesses by reducing costs through the removal of border checks and reducing many certificate requirements, such as for export health certificates. However, businesses and producers cannot plan without clarity, so will the Minister set out a timeline on when we can expect the SPS deal to be implemented?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there are so many echoes of the minimum wage debate, it is uncanny. As time has shown, the minimum wage has raised living standards in this country and it is something we are very proud to have implemented. We are looking to bring more investment across the economy. Recent surveys have shown that business confidence is increasing as a result of decisions made by this Labour Government.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) made clear earlier, the ONS statistics are very clear: 109,000 fewer on payroll in May alone and 276,000 fewer since the autumn Budget. As UKHospitality points out, the NICs changes were
“felt most intensely by foundational sectors like hospitality,”
which “necessitates an urgent review”.
My question to the Minister is simple: where will his red line sit? How many more jobs have to come off payroll before the Department for Business and Trade will stand up to the Treasury on this? Another 100,000? A million? Where is the line?
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on the need for face-to-face banking in communities and high streets up and down the country. We are committed to working with the banks to roll out 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament, but we also think that the Post Office can do more to help to improve access to banking services. On the particular issue in his constituency, if it would be helpful, I would be very happy to sit down and talk to him about what else he might be able to do to secure a banking hub for his constituents.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Retail Jobs Alliance is very clear in its warning that the Government’s changes to business rates will
“accelerate the decline of high streets, reducing footfall…and creating a cycle of economic downturn.”
That letter was also signed by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—a Labour-affiliated trade union. Once again, the Minister and the Department for Business and Trade have a choice. Will they stand up for high street retailers, actual employers and even their own affiliated trade union, or will they just go along with Treasury diktat?
Sarah Jones
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are doing what we can to unlock the planning challenges that people have faced for many years in a whole range of areas. We are introducing legislation to do that, and making several changes. I obviously cannot comment on specific planning proposals in his area, but he should be reassured that we are doing what we can to encourage growth.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
We have been promised a modern industrial strategy for nearly a year. First, it was going to be with us in the spring; then it was going to be published at the spending review; and now it will be here “shortly”. The industrial strategy seems to be a strategy to clobber industry with higher taxes and higher business rates. Will the modern industrial strategy have greater longevity than the Office for Investment? It was announced in October, and we were not given an update until last Thursday, when it launched. Yesterday, we were told in the spending review that it is now being restructured. What is the future for the Office for Investment?
Sarah Jones
I can guarantee the hon. Lady that our industrial strategy will have a longer shelf life than hers did; I think it lasted 18 months—I am not entirely sure. We forget, because it did not have much of an impact. We have worked with all industries across the country to put together a comprehensive package that will make it easier to do business in the UK, and support our city regions and clusters across the country, where we have excellent industry. It will turbocharge the eight growth sectors, and it will make the Government more agile in interacting with business. That is why we are reforming the Office for Investment, as we have always said we will. It is now a significantly more substantial organisation, and will give significantly more support. The hon. Lady should look at—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am really bothered, because we have only got to question 8, and I still need to call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats welcome yesterday’s announcements from the Chancellor on investment in public infrastructure projects. However, the general secretary of the Prospect trade union has warned that the UK lacks the skilled workers required for the new defence and nuclear projects outlined by the Chancellor. Similarly, Make UK and the Federation of Small Businesses have highlighted that a shortage of skilled workers would be a critical stumbling block for growth. As we continue to await the much-anticipated industrial strategy, why are the Government moving funding away from level 7 apprenticeships, when we know that they support social mobility? More broadly, why did they not seize the opportunity in yesterday’s statement to commit to fixing the apprenticeship levy, to ensure that money is invested in skills and training?
Sarah Jones
Forgive me for my long answers, Mr Speaker, but there is a lot to talk about in the industrial strategy, and I like to talk about it. The hon. Lady raises an important point. There is a significant skills challenge, and we will not shy away from it. Yesterday, £1.2 billion for skills was announced in the spending review. We have announced £600 million for construction skills, because that is a big issue for building the infrastructure that we need. We know we need to go further, and we are working closely with industry on how we can use the resources we have to recruit the welders, engineers—
Mr Speaker
Order. If there is so much to say, the Minister should bring forward a statement, or let us have a debate on this very important subject. I do not know how she will explain to MPs that they will not get in, because I am now going to topicals.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Yes, I can reaffirm that position. As she says, the Foreign Secretary announced on 20 May that we have suspended negotiations on an upgraded free trade agreement with Israel in response to the egregious actions of the Netanyahu Government in Gaza and the west bank. Of course, the UK has existing business relationships with Israel that are not affected by that decision, and we maintain trade envoys with both Israel and the Palestinian territories. What we all want is peace, a two-state solution and a strong UK relationship with both states.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Postmasters who were hit by the Horizon scandal will be concerned to hear Sir Alan Bates describe the compensation process as a “quasi-kangaroo court”. Can the Minister reassure postmasters about the redress that they are due, and reassure taxpayers about the redress that he is seeking from Fujitsu?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and she is absolutely right to draw attention to the continuing need to speed up compensation to sub-postmasters. Since we came into government, we have increased fourfold the amount of compensation paid to sub-postmasters, but there is an awful lot more to do. On the issues that Sir Alan Bates raised, the hon. Lady will know that under the group litigation order scheme, through which his compensation issues are being addressed, there are various independent points on the journey at which to consider the offer—
Mr Speaker
Order. If Ministers do not want Members to get in, please will they say so, because they are taking all the time from Back Benchers, which is really unfair to them? Back Benchers have put forward their names and come here to ask questions, and Ministers are just enjoying themselves too much.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
Gareth Thomas
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Through our small business strategy, we will set out very shortly further plans to support businesses to get on the high street. The increase in money in the British Business Bank, announced yesterday by the Chancellor, will also significantly increase access to finance for such businesses.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Justin Madders
We had a Westminster Hall debate last week in which a number of these issues were raised. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are undertaking our fourth review of the GCA. I encourage him and other hon. Members to contribute to it. We are considering the points made in that debate, and we will welcome any comments in the review.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I very much welcome yesterday’s investment in UK energy abundance, but as our Committee pointed out on Friday, the success of the industrial strategy will depend on a plan to cut industrial energy costs now. When the industrial strategy is published, will the Secretary of State reassure us that there will be a plan to ensure that UK energy prices are internationally competitive?
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I welcome the UK-India trade deal, which is good for salmon and good for whisky. Will the Secretary of State use his muscle to ensure that a chain of small distilleries in my constituency and across Scotland can sell a wee dram to India, as well as the big brands?
Mr Speaker, I would like to draw the House’s attention to reports of a crash on take-off of a London-bound Air India flight from India today, and allow the Secretary of State to express our concern.
Mr Speaker
It is very important, and I think the Leader of the House will make reference to it when we get to business questions—if we get there.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for updating the House on that matter. He will know that one of the brilliant things about the UK-India deal is that it is not just for the higher-value, iconic products we are all familiar with; for bulk, there is no minimum price in the deal. The deal is incredibly strong for every bit of the whisky—and gin—industry in the United Kingdom.
I am alert to the news my hon. Friend has just shared, and colleagues will update the House.
Jonathan Reynolds
That is an area of concern to us all. We support and continue to implement some of the listing rules and prospective changes of the previous Government, but the bigger change from this Government is to liquidity, particularly around pensions reforms. None the less, this remains an issue of key competitiveness for the United Kingdom.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Eastbourne businesses Qualisea, Gianni’s and Gr/eat are up in arms, as I am, that East Sussex county council’s shambolic management of the Victoria Place pedestrianisation means that works will now fall in the summer, their busiest trading period. What provision will Ministers make to ensure that businesses hit by such disruption can be properly compensated?
Gareth Thomas
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not have the details of that specific case, but if he wants to write to me I will happily look into it.
Business and the Economy
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have not selected the amendment.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
US-UK Trade Deal: Northern Ireland
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months 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
Mr Speaker
Order. I gently say that answers to urgent questions are only meant to last for three minutes. I can see that you have quite a few more pages; I am happy to take them because I think it is important that the House knows about the deal, but we need to understand what we have granted and what we have not granted. I do not want to go back over the events of Thursday, when nobody seemed to understand the procedure of the House, and I recognise how important this issue is to hon. Members but, seriously, we should know the rules and I just wonder how this has gone wrong again.
Jonathan Reynolds
Mr Speaker, I am incredibly grateful for your forbearance. If it is okay, I will continue to these words, given how important I know the matter is to all Members of the House.
Mr Speaker
Order. If it is so very important, why was it not presented to the House as a statement or converted? That is what I would say. I never quite understand—the other day, we could not convert them quickly enough, but today we do not want to.
Jonathan Reynolds
Mr Speaker, I would have been more than happy to make it a statement, and I was hoping to be able to do so.
We have negotiated a quota of 100,000 vehicles where tariffs will be reduced from 27.5% to 10%, and secured an agreement for associated car parts, recognising the vital role that this sector plays in our economy.
For steel and aluminium, this deal will remove the 25% additional tariffs that were put in place earlier this year, reducing US tariffs on core steel products to zero. This will provide a critical lift for the steel industry, which has been brought back from the brink of collapse, allowing UK steelmakers to continue exporting to the US. This follows our intervention last month to take control of British Steel and save thousands of jobs in Scunthorpe.
For pharmaceuticals and life sciences, this deal provides assurances that we will receive significantly preferential access in case of any new US tariffs, something that, so far, only the UK has secured. As the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector contributes £20 billion to the UK economy a year and employs around 50,000 people, this was a priority for us.
On aerospace, we agreed that UK aerospace exports, such as Rolls-Royce engines and plane parts, will have a specific guarantee of zero tariffs as a result of this deal. This will be a huge boost to the sector, which supports 450,000 jobs in the UK.
To secure this deal, we have made agreements with the US on beef, ethanol and economic security. On beef, we have agreed a new quota of 13,000 metric tonnes, and have reduced the UK tariff on existing US imports coming through a World Trade Organisation quota limited to 1,000 metric tonnes. Crucially, I can confirm this will comply with sanitary and phytosanitary standards, in accordance with the commitments that we have always made.
The increase in the quota of 13,000 tonnes compares with the 110,000 tonnes in the Australia deal negotiated by the last Conservative Government. Even more importantly, the deal is reciprocal, meaning our UK beef farmers will have unprecedented market access to the US. Our farmers will be able to export their high-quality beef through an exclusive UK quota to a market of over 300 million people, providing unparalleled access to the world’s largest consumer market.
On ethanol, we already import a significant amount of ethanol from the US and have agreed a duty-free quota capped at 1.4 billion litres. We are working closely with our domestic sector to understand its concerns and any potential impacts to businesses, including what more Government can do to support the sector.
Finally, the UK and US will strengthen our co-operation on economic security and work together to combat duty evasion. We will continue to use investment screening measures already in place, and we will work together to protect our existing supply chains from any third-country investment that concerns either one of us. This Government will take a consistent, long-term and pragmatic approach to managing the UK’s relationships with third countries, rooted in our UK and global interests.
As we have made clear, the aspiration on both sides is that this is just the beginning, with the US agreeing to deepen transatlantic trade and investment further, and to progress discussions towards a transformative UK-US technology partnership. This deal has seen jobs saved and jobs won, but it is by no means job done. The siren voices of the extremes can claim to be the voice of working people all they want, but we know that on matters of action on wages, security and opportunity, it is this Government who will make the difference.
The deal comes on the back of our India trade deal earlier last week and on the promises that many Governments have made to secure trade agreements with the US. Although many people have talked about those deals, it is this Government that have got them across the line for every bit of the UK, including Northern Ireland.
Jim Allister
For all his verbosity, the Secretary of State came nowhere close to addressing the issues that arise from the fact that this Government and this House do not control the trade laws of a part of this United Kingdom—namely, Northern Ireland. Under the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland was placed under the EU’s customs code, so it is therefore its tariffs, not the UK’s tariffs, that govern the imports to Northern Ireland. With the EU having no trade deal with the US or India, the resulting tariffs on imports under this deal will be higher when the goods come to Northern Ireland than when they come to GB. For manufacturing and consumers, that creates huge disadvantage and fundamentally contradicts the equal citizenship that is supposed to denote a United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State referred to the convoluted and tardy system of possible recoupment of tariffs, but the onus there is on those applying to prove that anything they produce will never go into the EU. It is no answer to Northern Ireland’s subjection to foreign trade laws, which we do not make and cannot change. The Secretary of State would not contemplate that for his own constituents, but he expects us to sup it up in Northern Ireland.
I will ask the Secretary of State about three specific issues. Under the deal, will it not be easier for US manufacturers to buy tariff-free steel from Great Britain than for manufacturers in Northern Ireland to buy the same steel from their own country to bring it into their own country? That steel will be subject to EU tariffs. How can that ever be compatible with Northern Ireland supposedly being part of the EU’s internal market? In terms of beef and the tariff-free trade within the quota that has been set, how can—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member must be coming to an end. Just because the Secretary of State has taken advantage of the Chamber, I certainly do not expect every other Member to do so—Front Benchers, yes, but the hon. and learned Member will know that he is limited to two minutes.
Jim Allister
Where there is a set quota for imports of beef, how can Northern Ireland participate in that if the UK cannot offer a reduced tariff rate in Northern Ireland? Does that mean that our beef-exporting farmers in Northern Ireland will be excluded? Surely all these trade deals expose the folly of surrendering part of our territory to foreign customs control.
Jonathan Reynolds
Absolutely. Whenever any trade agreement of any sort is agreed, there will obviously be domestic impacts if our trading partners have requested further access to the UK market. That is particularly the case for the agreement on bioethanol. Senior officials from my Department have been meeting representatives of the domestic industry, and I have a personal meeting set up—on Wednesday of this week, I believe. A lot of the issues we need to address are wider than what has been agreed through this trade agreement, but our commitment to working with the domestic industry to help manage any trade-based transitions is absolute.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this urgent question, although I agree that the Government really should have offered a statement to the House on this important subject.
Of course, the House has still not yet seen the full detail of the trade agreement with the United States of America. The Secretary of State says that this is just the beginning, but there are still a great many unanswered questions about what we have so far, including what are clearly ongoing negotiations on pharmaceuticals. In his answer, the Secretary of State said that the UK will have significantly preferential rates, but what does that mean in practice? Where is the detail about what “significantly preferential rates” actually means? There are similar questions about the digital services tax.
Last week, the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), asked the Trade Minister a straight question: whether this trade agreement would
“protect the special status of Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, 8 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 899.]
The Minister was unable to provide an answer at the time, and I remain unconvinced by what the Secretary of State has had to say today—there is still a lot of talk about the risks of goods entering the European Union. Clearly, this is a far more complex situation than the Secretary of State would like us to accept. As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim made clear, the EU is still hugely influential in Northern Ireland trade law. The points he made about steel, for example, were accurate and deserve clear answers.
It is clear that this deal will have a number of implications for the functioning of the dual customs regime, yet businesses in Northern Ireland have been left in the dark for too long by the lack of detail in last week’s announcement. I would therefore be grateful if the Secretary of State would confirm what discussions he has had with his US and EU counterparts about rules of origin and the green lane in Northern Ireland. What specific measures are the Government implementing to ensure that Northern Ireland businesses are not disproportionately burdened by increased costs and administrative complexities as a result of this trade agreement? Finally, given that the Prime Minister is gearing up for his surrender summit with the European Union next week, can the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no backsliding on Northern Ireland’s place as an integral, absolute and total part of our United Kingdom?
Jonathan Reynolds
Last week was a good week all told, on footballing and trade matters. You may be noting, Mr Speaker, that my voice is a little hoarse as a result.
We on the Government Benches were elected on our manifesto commitment not to alter our sanitary and phytosanitary regime and our food standards. Some people said that a deal with the United States would not be possible if we stuck to that, but we did, and we have an agreement. That proves everything we said about why that issue is so important to us.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Please bear with me, Mr Speaker, because I think that I too am losing my voice.
Parliament must be given a vote on the United States trade deal and all future trade deals, which must be properly scrutinised by Parliament. Let me remind the Secretary of State that Labour party policy was to have a vote in Parliament on trade deals. What a massive U-turn has taken place over the past few months. Trump’s trade war threatens jobs across the United Kingdom and especially in Northern Ireland, where there is heightened uncertainty because of the Tories’ botched Brexit deal. What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the impacts of Trump’s trade war on our small businesses and our living standards, and what will he do to address those impacts?
In Wokingham, where I live, Shinfield Studios employs hundreds locally. We are the Hollywood of the UK. What steps are the Government taking to protect the UK film industry from potential tariffs, and thus to protect jobs in Wokingham and in other parts of the UK, including Northern Ireland?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Thomas
I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is urgently seeking to arrange the meeting with the hon. Member to discuss this issue, because we recognise that this is a key concern of the automotive sector. As I have said, we are seeking to negotiate an economic deal with the US, but we are also looking to work with the automotive industry to increase exports of cars and other things that they produce across all sorts of new markets. One of the roadshows we are organising for small businesses is about that.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Government are far from supporting small businesses to export. Businesses of every size, up and down the country, are failing at a rate not seen since the 2008 financial crash, when Labour was last in power. Confidence is slumping, family businesses are closing, millionaires are fleeing the country—and that is before tariffs hit. What representations is the Minister making to the Chancellor about reversing some of the measures that hit business in her Hallowe’en Budget?
Jonathan Reynolds
First, let me thank my hon. Friend for all her work as our trade envoy to New Zealand. She knows, because she was present, that on his visit to the UK, New Zealand Prime Minister Luxon spent the day with the Prime Minister, and I was able to spend considerable time with him in the afternoon. We discussed the implementation of the UK-New Zealand FTA, as well as the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, and the importance of working together to support free trade and to protect a rules-based trading system. We are working to ensure that businesses are using the FTA to support the Government’s growth agenda and the plan for change. Later this month, we will host the UK-New Zealand FTA joint committee, which will discuss continuing to grow UK and New Zealand trade.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is good to hear that the trade negotiations with India, which began when we were in government, are progressing well. There must surely now be an opportunity to reopen talks with Canada, so it can buy more wonderful cheese from the UK. With the tariff clock ticking, I am sure the Secretary of State recognises that the US deal is the most urgent; many UK jobs are at risk. However, we heard recently from the Chancellor, when she was in the States, that her bigger priority is discussions with the EU, where we already have zero tariffs and zero quotas. Does the Secretary of State share the Chancellor’s priorities, or does he think the US is more urgent?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank the hon. Lady for the earlier part of her comments. She is right that we wanted the previous Government to secure the India FTA, and we were willing to support them fully in doing that, but they were unable to get it across the line. With Canada, there are issues, particularly around agriculture, that are similar to those involving the US, so that may be more of a challenging negotiation.
The entirety of this Government, however, have been clear that we are not seeking to pick between one market and another—both are absolutely fundamental. The Chancellor’s comments specifically relate to the simple truth that there is a much greater quantum of UK-EU trade than UK-US trade. Equally, though, in all these negotiations, we have to focus on not just what can be done quickly, but what can be done right and in the national interest. There is no point securing an agreement that does not deliver on our objectives, no matter whom that agreement is with.
We will welcome any support from the Conservatives for the work we are trying to do. I do believe it is easier politically for this Government to do some trade agreements that are available to the UK; some may not have been politically available to the Conservative Government. We will continue to do that work, and we welcome all support for it, from across the House.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister whether Parliament will get a final vote on any trade deal negotiated with the United States, and the Prime Minister stated that it would go through the known process. That process does not include a vote for MPs on the ratification of any trade deal. Will the Secretary of State therefore make it explicitly clear, with a yes or no, whether MPs will get a final vote on the deal with the United States? The PM’s answer yesterday implied that we would not.
Mr Alexander
At exactly this point tomorrow morning, I will be visiting a farm in East Lothian, so I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am fully aware of the importance of food and agriculture to the Scottish economy and, more broadly, to the UK economy. I also respectfully refer him to the Labour manifesto at the last general election, which made very clear our commitment to maintaining important standards.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which is about to start its Committee stage in the House, may sound a little dry, but it would give the Secretary of State unfettered power to sign up to dynamic alignment with the European Union at the 19th summit. Given that voters are going to the polls today, will the Minister take the opportunity at the Dispatch Box to rule out the UK becoming an EU rule-taker?
Gareth Thomas
I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the significance of pubs across the UK, particularly in rural communities such as those he represents. It is one reason why we are in the final throes of agreeing extra funding for the great organisation Pub is the Hub, which supports pubs in rural areas to adapt to changing needs and enables them to continue to be the vital social hubs that they are in communities. I hope that the Scottish Government will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments and will recognise the need to follow the UK Government’s line and instigate significant business rates reform. Certainly, they need to look at provision on business rates relief, which is not as generous in Scotland, thanks to their decisions, as here in the UK, thanks to the generosity of our Chancellor.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
In a grave and exceptionally rare step, five major business groups, including the Confederation of British Industry, Make UK, the Institute of Directors, and the Federation of Small Businesses, have all written to condemn the Employment Rights Bill, and their views are shared by UKHospitality and many others. They say that the Bill will damage growth and employment. I know that, and the Minister knows that. This Bill will hurt business. Every business tells me this, and they are telling him exactly the same. Does the Secretary of State think that is why so many of his Ministers are unable to name a single business that supports the Bill and his Government’s jobs tax?
Mr Alexander
I would be inclined to wait for the summit before declaiming it as a disaster—I think, in the trade, that is called prebuttal. However, the hon. Gentleman’s point about the seriousness of the summit is a fair one, and I recognise it. When I saw those images of the Prime Minister sitting with President Trump in the Oval Office, or indeed with President Macron or President von der Leyen of the European Commission, I felt a genuine sense of relief that we have a serious Prime Minister for these serious times. That serious Prime Minister is intent on, first, rebuilding personal relationships across Europe and, secondly, looking to identify the areas that are transparently win-win between ourselves and our friends, neighbours and partners in the European Union. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is an ambitious agenda for the summit on the 19th.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Government need to deliver measures that will cut red tape for businesses in Wokingham and across the country who want to sell their goods to our largest trading partner, the European Union. Since Brexit, over 2 billion pieces of paperwork have been added to UK exporters—enough paper to wrap around the world nearly 15 times. Does the Minister recognise the scale of that figure? How will he ensure that Conservative-imposed red tape for business with Europe is cut down?
Jonathan Reynolds
First, let me assuage the hon. Gentleman’s concerns: that is a misreading of how the US is approaching these negotiations. The US has perhaps more complex issues with some countries that will take more bandwidth on its side. As I have always said, the existing relationship between the UK and the US is incredibly strong, reciprocal and mutually beneficial. I see far fewer issues to negotiate to get to that outcome.
Again, I would push back on anyone attempting to put the case that the decisions we make must be based on either the EU, the US or any other partner being our principal partner. The role for the UK is to position ourselves in this challenging world with a genuine strategic advantage because we do things that improve our trading relationship with the EU; we secure this US deal; and we secure the deals with India, the Gulf and other key markets. I am pragmatic about where the UK’s national interest lies and am absolutely confident that it is possible and desirable.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Today the Select Committee writes to the Secretary of State to supply our response to his consultation on how we should respond to American tariffs. We have heard widespread consensus that there should not be retaliatory tariffs and that the approach the Government are pursuing is right, but we have also heard real concerns especially in the automotive industry among those big exporters to America and, crucially, their supply chains. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that he is readying support packages across Government to ensure that our automotive sector does not run into serious trouble if we cannot get a deal with America soon?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) might not invite Ministers to his constituency, but I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s invitation—diary permitting, I would be delighted to come along. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced our plans for a business growth service, which should make it easier for UK businesses to get Government advice and support in order to grow. I hope that will make a real difference. In addition, we are considering what else we can do to unlock better access to finance for small businesses such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The Secretary of State says that all the funding required for the nationalisation of British Steel will come out of existing budgets. We have seen his Department’s budget—we had an estimates day debate in the House not long ago—and there was no unallocated pot. Could he be a little more specific about exactly which budget the money is coming from?
Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend and recognise the challenge. We lost 1,250 jobs in the ceramics sector between 2015 and 2023. It has been a very sad decline, and we want to turn that around.
The whole point of an industrial strategy is to have a Government who are proactive in supporting our industries. We will not put extra cost on the ceramics industry; we are looking to see how we can help and support. My hon. Friend has my word on that. We are working on every single one of the suggested policy reforms in the package that Ceramics UK has put forward, and we will meet him next week to talk about these things.
I cannot make promises at the Dispatch Box on areas that are not my responsibility and rule out whole swathes of policy, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will not put extra costs on the ceramics industry. We are looking to do more and to support, and we will come back. I completely understand his point about the timing and the need to act quickly.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Grangemouth, the Luton Vauxhall plant and now the Moorcroft pottery in Stoke-on-Trent—every single week, we hear of more job losses in energy-intensive industries and more British companies shutting up shop and laying off workers because of the toxic combination of high energy costs and this Chancellor’s devastating jobs tax. We have the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world. Just this week, INEOS told us in no uncertain terms that carbon taxes and high energy costs are killing off manufacturing in the UK.
This Government have been warned by Opposition Members, by the GMB this week and by Unite. This week, they were warned by none other than Tony Blair. What was their response? Advisers in No. 10 Downing Street picked up the phone and begged him to row back on what he said. They asked him to row back on what we all know to be true—what the Minister, Morgan McSweeney, apparently, and an increasing number of the Government’s own Back Benchers know to be true: the current approach to energy and net zero is doomed to fail, and voters are being asked to make financial sacrifices when they know that the impact on global emissions is minimal. That is at the heart of this madness.
This Government are wilfully destroying British industry in oil and gas, ceramics, chemicals and metals when they know that it will not make a difference to global emissions. We will not use any less oil and gas; neither will we use any less steel, cement, bricks or chemicals. We will just import those things from abroad, at greater cost to our economy and the climate and with British job losses added to the bargain. As the Government are led by an ideological zealot, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, and by a Prime Minister too weak to rein him in, we will continue down this path, and British workers will pay the price—in Aberdeen, in Grangemouth, in Luton, and today in Stoke.
Energy is not a silo; energy costs underpin growth, prosperity, competitiveness and living standards. Without cheap energy, our industries will not survive—British manufacturers cannot remain competitive—so what will the Minister do to prevent more British jobs being lost in energy-intensive industries in this country? Will she listen to the head of Unite, who says that working-class people are losing their jobs and that this Government have no plan to replace them? Will the Government end their mad ideological plan to shut down North sea operations? What will it take for Labour Back Benchers to wake up and realise that this ideological approach is crippling this country?
Sarah Jones
The Conservative party is hiding behind this new-found scepticism of net zero to conceal its complete failure to support and grow our foundational and manufacturing industries on its watch. On its watch, we lost 70,000 jobs in the North sea and 1,250 jobs in the ceramics sector, chemicals manufacturing fell by 30%, and we produced only 30% of the steel that we use in this country. The Conservative party’s record on this issue is shameful.
This Government have a completely different approach. We are developing the industrial strategy, which will support those foundational industries. We are looking to make sure we can reach net zero by 2030, in order to provide the economic and energy security we need. The last cost of living crisis was caused by our reliance on global gas prices, as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) knows, and as he occasionally says in some meetings when he flips and flops on his position on net zero. We will support manufacturing; we are developing our industrial strategy, which will be published in a few weeks’ time, and we are already providing more support to the energy-intensive industries through the energy supercharger than the previous Government did. We will act where the previous Government failed to act.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) is an enormous champion of the ceramics industry, and he is right to bring this question to the House today, but this issue is wider than simply the ceramics sector. Tata Steel has told our Committee that energy prices are the single biggest factor in its lack of competitiveness, and Nissan has told us that electricity prices at its plant in Sunderland are the highest of any Nissan plant in the world. We have recommended that the Government bring energy prices in line with our European competitors; can the Minister tell us today that she shares that ambition?
Sarah Jones
I thank my right hon. Friend the Committee Chair for his question. Of course this is a huge issue. Under the previous Government, industrial energy prices doubled, and as my right hon. Friend says, we have higher prices than many other countries. The 3,000 people who responded to our consultation on the industrial strategy said that energy, skills and access to finance were their top three issues, so we are absolutely aware of the issue. We are looking at what support we can provide and how we can make our country more competitive, both for the people who are looking to invest in the UK and for our existing manufacturing base.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats believe that the future of British industry and our national security depend on a serious and sustained commitment to renewable energy. We want to see far greater emphasis on clean energy sources, particularly solar, in order to reduce our dangerous reliance on fossil fuels, strengthen our energy security, and tackle fuel poverty by bringing down energy bills for households and businesses alike. In the face of Putin’s barbaric war in Europe and with Donald Trump’s reckless tariffs threatening fresh economic turmoil, we cannot afford to be complacent. The future of energy-intensive industries, not least our steel industry, hangs in the balance.
Steelmaking is not just an economic asset; it is of vital strategic importance to the UK. We need steel in order to build the infrastructure required for a sustainable, secure future, from wind turbines and railways to hospitals and homes. Without it, our ambitions for net zero and national resilience will collapse. As such, will the Government give a clear, unequivocal commitment to their net zero plans, and will they ensure that no option is off the table when it comes to safeguarding our steel industry and the future of British manufacturing?
Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill
Lindsay Hoyle ExcerptsSaturday 12th April 2025
(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2024-26 View all Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 94-I Marshalled list for Committee - (12 Apr 2025)
Mr Speaker
I remind Members that, under the Order of the House of today, notice of amendments and new clauses to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be—[Interruption.] This is very serious. They may be accepted in person by the Clerks at the Table in the Chamber before the Bill has been read a Second time. The deadline for amendments tabled in this way is 12 noon. Any amendments tabled to the Bill will be treated as manuscript amendments, meaning that only those tabled before 12 noon and selected by the Chairman for debate at Committee stage will be distributed and published.
Mrs Badenoch
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like advice on how to counter the points the Secretary of State is making, given that they are factually incorrect and a complete misrepresentation of the situation that he inherited.
Mr Speaker
It has just been clarified by your good self. I cannot make the Secretary of State give way when you want to come to the Dispatch Box, but I am sure that if he notices you doing so again, he may wish to.
Jonathan Reynolds
This is an excellent chance to clarify that. If the Leader of the Opposition agreed a deal with Jingye to cause massive job losses in Scunthorpe and transfer the jobs to a completely different place, and at higher cost than the request the company made to us, I think she should be able to tell us. I am more than happy to give way.
Jonathan Reynolds
The hon. Member puts it extremely well, if I may say so. The people who have upheld steel as the backbone of construction in the UK for decades deserve better treatment than they would have had if Parliament had not been recalled today to take this action, and we should all bear that in mind.
Whether it is at Port Talbot, via our upcoming steel strategy, via our work to improve public procurement, or in the introduction of our industrial strategy to tackle the most thorny issues of industrial competitiveness, where others have shied away, this Government have stepped up.
Let me conclude by saying that steel is fundamental to Britain’s industrial strength, our security and our identity as a primary global power. Today’s legislation will help ensure that we can retain that steelmaking capability here in the UK both now and for years to come. For British workers’ security, for British industries’ future and—without hesitation—in our national interest, and for the workers of British Steel and their families, this action is essential, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind Members that those who keep intervening will go down the list, so that everybody gets a fair chance.
Graham Stuart
I assume that applies after the warning, Mr Speaker.
We have a Government who, I believe, are shipping coking coal just off the Lincolnshire coast today from Japan, when it was perfectly possible to have the world’s greenest production of coking coal in Cumbria, with thousands of jobs. Is it not a disgrace that this Government turned their back on jobs in Cumbria and, indeed, in the North sea because they put ideology ahead of practicality and even ahead of the environment?
Mr Speaker
You will sit down, actually. It is the hon. Gentleman’s choice whether he gives way, so Members should stop hanging around.
Andrew Griffith
I will take an intervention if someone wants to answer this question: has anyone in Government asked the ONS whether, as a result of the powers that are being taken in this Bill, from today British Steel will be classified as publicly owned, whether it has been formally nationalised or not? No answers.
Andrew Griffith
Disappointingly, there was no answer to my important question about the ONS and whether this asset will sit on the Government’s balance sheet. Perhaps when the Minister winds up, he will provide an answer to that important question that affects the nation’s finances.
The markets know, the world knows and we know that the Chancellor’s headroom was inadequate from the very moment that she sat down after her last emergency Budget. Only this week, the Bank of England took the unprecedented step of cancelling the planned sale of Government bonds. Today’s botched nationalisation will further unsettle international markets. When will the Chancellor be presenting her next emergency Budget, and what are her plans to update the markets?
There we are: a disrespect of this House; the Government treating Parliament with disdain; nine months of dither and delay; and a botched nationalisation of steelmaking, with the British taxpayer on the hook. It is crystal clear that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. This is not a serious Government. It is a Government shaped by events, not in control of them. It is government by sulky teenager—not sharing their plans, not answering the question, and when it goes wrong, it is everyone’s fault but theirs.
Liam Byrne
The right hon. Gentleman may well be right, but this is the second key point that I want to land: the truth is that Jingye is a mess. It has failed to publish accounts since 2021. Two auditors have resigned; one cited material concerns about the company’s ability to remain a going concern. Inventories cannot be verified. Cash-flow statements are missing. The company is not acting in good faith, and that is why the Secretary of State is right to take the powers that he is asking for today.
It is clear that the escalating trade war between China and the United States created the imperative to act today. It is clear that Jingye was about to move primary steelmaking capability from Scunthorpe back to China and merely use the downstream mills in Scunthorpe. That may have been good for China’s economic security, but it is not good for Britain’s national security, and that is why we need to give the Secretary of State the powers that he is asking for.
The options on the table are very simple. The Secretary of State could do nothing and watch the furnaces close; he could hope, but hope is not a strategy; or he could act, as he has done today. He has acted with strength and made a decision in the long-term interests of our country, and the House should give him its full and unabated support.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I make an appeal to everybody? A lot of people want to speak and there is going to be some disappointment. I think those whose constituents are actually going to be affected should be allowed to speak, but let us see how we go for time. We need to be brief to get more Members in. Let us have a good example from Melanie Onn.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one major way in which we could secure markets for British steel is through the “British first” strategy that the Ministry of Defence has set out for the building of future warships?
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Roca, has somebody texted a photograph outside this place of what is going on here this morning?
Mr Speaker
Okay, can people please not take or text photographs? I do not know if that is the case here, but your name has just been associated with it.
Melanie Onn
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst); it is imperative that we tie up all the initiatives that this Government are bringing forward, whether in defence or other critical areas of industry, to make sure we can secure the long-term future of steel.
To ensure the best chance of successfully securing a private partner or long-term commercial solution, the Government must take all actions available within their powers and do all they can to make British Steel viable. I wonder whether now is perhaps the time for the Government to look again at the carbon border adjustment mechanism. The EU has already brought in the adjustment mechanism to protect against international steel dumping. By doing all we can—whether by keeping down energy costs, as I know the Minister has sought to do, investing through the national wealth fund or, indeed, bringing in the CBAM—this is our chance to secure a genuine, long-term solution for the preservation of British Steel.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Can we try to help each other by not speaking for too long? I hope we do not have reams of paper for the next speech. Bill Esterson will be a good example of a shorter speech.
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is reported that Jingye management has been turned away by workers and the Humberside police today, so will the Minister tell the House whether the Government’s policy is to bar Jingye management from going on to the premises?
Mr Speaker
As the right hon. Member knows, that is great information but not a point of order.
Sarah Jones
I will not comment from the Dispatch Box on reports that have been made during the debate. We are actively engaged, minute by minute, on activities in British Steel. If anything, those reports underwrite the need for the powers in the Bill to be introduced on this day. I hope all hon. Members will support the introduction of the legislation and vote for it today.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham suggested that we could have moved faster. I reassure the House that we do not recall the House lightly. We do it because we have a choice today: do we want to deny any possibility of the future of the steelworks at Scunthorpe and do we want to see the closure of the blast furnaces, or do we want to secure a future for those workers and for primary steelmaking in this country?
Scunthorpe Steelworks
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we talked about exactly that at the Business and Trade Committee. This country has seen a significant decline in steel manufacturing over the last decade, and we want to turn that around. Long before we got into government, we committed to a plan for steel, which represents a £2.5 billion investment in UK steelmaking. As we speak, there is a roundtable at JCB in Stafford on the plan for steel, on this occasion discussing trade barriers—I was due to be chairing but came back to be in the Chamber. We have been having a series of roundtables to gather evidence and pull the facts and figures together so that we can put the right investment in place.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and Rob Waltham, our excellent candidate for Mayor of Greater Lincolnshire, for their engagement and work on this issue.
Despite repeatedly promising to protect and support virgin steelmaking capacity when in opposition, the Labour party is potentially presiding over its total demise. In the process, thousands of blue-collar jobs in this once proud industry have either gone forever or are at risk, including 5,000 directly employed roles at Port Talbot and Scunthorpe alone and many more in the supply chain.
Given that the regions with the highest numbers of steelworkers are Wales and Yorkshire and the Humber, the situation is dealing a hammer blow to efforts to address regional inequality. Steel is obviously a key strategic industry—even more so given our need to increase defence spending and infrastructure investment, and even more so again given President Trump’s game-changing imposition of tariffs.
The Prime Minister keeps saying that the world has changed, and that we are witnessing the end of globalisation. I cannot say that I totally agree, but if that is the Government’s position, surely they have no choice but to intervene to support domestic production. The alternative could see us locked out of reliable, consistently priced sources of steel. The Government have stepped in to help car manufacturing in recent days, so will the Minister now redouble her efforts to reach a deal with British Steel?
Steel production is just one of the industries closing due to our high energy prices, which are 50% higher than our competitors in France and Germany and 400% higher than in the USA. Other manufacturers such as CF Fertilisers on Teesside and Ineos at Grangemouth have closed their doors or are in the process of doing so. Will the Minister press with the Chancellor the case for permanently lower industrial energy prices?
The Minister mentions support for steelworkers. How many steelworkers have the Government engaged with? What support has been given to account for the knock-on effect to communities? What assessment has the Minister made of the effects this situation will have on national security? She mentions a bright future for steelmaking in this country. Will she confirm that that means primary steelmaking capability?
Sarah Jones
We are very much planning not to make the mistakes that my hon. Friend talked about. We do not want the blast furnaces to shut—that remains the Government’s view—and we will do everything we can to reach a deal with British Steel to protect workers and secure those jobs and the production of steel in the long term.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jamie Stone
In conversation this morning with Trudy Morris, the CEO of the Caithness chamber of commerce, she outlined the sheer importance of tourism businesses to the local economy and the farmers in Scotland. The concern expressed to me is on the rate of VAT on tourism and similar businesses, and although we do not know whether the Highland council will impose a tourism levy, that could be a double whammy. I do not expect for one instant hon. Members on the Front Bench to say, “Jamie, you can have a cut in the rate of VAT”—well, I dream sometimes—but I would be grateful for a meeting to discuss the nature of the problem and how we could possibly tackle it.
Gareth Thomas
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, as I cannot fulfil his dreams right now. However, I am happy to meet him to talk about that issue. I recognise that there is considerable interest in that question from the hospitality industry, so I am happy to meet to hear, in a bit more detail, the particular concerns expressed to him.
Gareth Thomas
I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman and his Conservative colleagues that we had to take the difficult decisions in the Budget to increase employer national insurance contributions because of the mess that their party left the country in. The shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), helped to write the Liz Truss Budget that did so much damage to our country—we are trying to sort out the mess. The shadow Secretary of State still has not apologised for his part in that fiasco. He should take the opportunity to do so during these questions.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Yesterday, the owner of the hugely popular Rumsey’s, which is celebrating 21 years on Wendover high street in my constituency, emailed me to say:
“We estimate the changes coming in April will add 15% to our staff costs that we simply don’t have. Therefore we have had to sadly make redundancies, put in a recruitment freeze and implement staff hour cuts to offset this.”
With real-world testimony like that replicated up and down the country, will the Minister finally acknowledge that an urgent change of course is needed to support high streets, scrap the employer NI rise, save jobs and protect communities?
Justin Madders
The hon. Member could not have put it better. He has explained the benefits of trade union membership, which is something that Members on the Conservative Benches clearly do not understand.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Business Secretary met recently in Japan with Fujitsu, which developed the Horizon system and has offered to contribute to the compensation for victims. Can the Minister tell the House how much the Secretary of State has asked it to contribute, so that taxpayers are not on the hook for £1 billion?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank the hon. Member for her question, and I thank Alison and Kevin for their important work. We already talked about the difficult choices that the Government faced and the unenviable choices that had to be made. Health and social care was a beneficiary of the additional revenue that needed to be raised to meet some of the challenges we face, but we are not casual about the impact of that, and we recognise the pressures that come from that. I would say that I do not agree. Taxes have to apply to every sector, and we cannot carve out certain sectors. However, I appreciate the pressures that she articulates. That is why the rest of the Government’s agenda is set to address all those factors.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Small businesses are the backbone of the British economy. Up and down the country, we have success stories of innovative start-ups and family-run businesses that should be part of the Government’s plan to get Britain growing again. Under the Conservatives, the number of small businesses in my constituency decreased by 360 between 2021 and 2024. The Tories messed up our national and local economy. Is the Minister concerned that his Government’s national insurance rises will damage the economy, just as the Conservatives did?
Jonathan Reynolds
I would say that businesses in the hon. Lady’s constituency should contact their local Conservative MP and say, “What was your plan?” because I think we have had three oral question sessions where this has broadly been the only thing that the Conservatives have to say. I genuinely want to know: what was the plan to pay for Post Office compensation? What was the plan to pay for the steel industry? When the Conservatives commissioned the public sector pay bodies with the remit that they were given, got the findings back, hid them and did not tell the British people during the general election campaign, what was the plan? How would they have reconciled that? The small business leaders, and businesses of every size, in the hon. Lady’s constituency know how to make difficult decisions. What—
Mr Speaker
Order. Look, this is getting ridiculous. We are on topicals, and that is the worst example I have seen of an answer to a topical.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
How have we got to this point? After 35 weeks as Trade Secretary, 18 weeks since the US election, and an entire month since steel and aluminium tariffs were first announced, the Secretary of State is only now going to sit down with the Secretary of Commerce of our closest ally. While he has been correcting his CV, steelworkers and businesses are hurting today. This is a colossal failure of trade policy on his watch. Why has it taken so long, and when can we expect an agreement?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
My hon. Friend is a great champion of the social enterprise sector. She will know that we are committed to doubling the size of the co-op and mutuals sector. We recently met the recently launched mutuals and co-op business council to begin working with businesses on our plans to expand the co-op and mutuals sector. She may also be aware that our social enterprise boost fund is currently spending some £4 million on helping to support social enterprises that are already up and running.
Jonathan Reynolds
We reserve the right to take any action in response to any changes to our trading relationships, but I do think we can look to the opportunity for the UK, which is greater than for any other country, to get to an agreement that improves our terms of trade with the US. I reserve the right to take any action, but I think we can look forward in a positive way to improving that trading relationship, and that right now is my message and focus.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
It was Chris Bloore’s turn. I am following the Order Paper, but I am going from side to side. Chris Law will come afterwards; he was not next.
Jonathan Reynolds
There are many Members called Chris.
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As he will know, the creative industries are part of our industrial strategy. We are hugely proud of their soft power and economic impact, and of course we will get him the meeting he requests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The Groceries Code Adjudicator’s annual survey shows high levels of compliance by the supermarkets. However, a statutory review will actually commence next month, and I would encourage her and all stakeholders to contribute to it.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Gareth Thomas
We know that rural businesses want to see more investment in bus services and better transport infrastructure. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Chancellor announced in the Budget some £650 million-plus in funding for local transport, which is designed to support everyday journeys and improve transport connections. I am sure, too, that she will welcome the better buses Bill, which is coming in to give local authorities—
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
I can assure the House that we are in regular touch with the Scotch Whisky Association. We fully appreciate the significance and importance of that industry not just to Scotland but to the UK. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we are well served by a serious Prime Minister in these serious times, which affords us the opportunity for a dialogue in trade frankly not available to other countries.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
President Trump’s new tariffs are double trouble for Britain’s steel and aluminium suppliers. They will dent £350 million of sales, but they also risk swamping the UK with over-subsidised Chinese steel diverted from America. What is the Secretary of State’s game plan now to redouble defences for our UK metal makers?
Plant Oxford Site
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 months, 3 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
Sarah Jones
We are working at pace on delivering the industrial strategy in the spring. There are 150,000 good jobs in the automotive industry, and we want to see those jobs grow. We have identified eight growth sectors that the industrial strategy will turbocharge. Advanced manufacturing is one of them, and that of course includes the auto industry. We have £2 billion of investment, committed at the Budget, to underpin that. We are also working in the industrial strategy on identifying any barriers to growth, so that we can ensure that the sector grows in the years to come.
The industrial strategy will give the stability that we need over the long term—over five and 10 years. It will look at the policy levers that we can control to ensure that businesses continue to want to invest in the UK. PwC has just ranked the UK the second-best place in the world to invest, so I think the future is positive.
Sarah Jones
Here we go with the same old lines. The hon. Gentleman tells us that net zero is a massive con, yet he owns a company that is investing in electric car charging ports. I rest my case.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister has a real interest in the matters for which she has ministerial responsibility; I want to put on the record my thanks to her. When we have had meetings on other issues relating to Northern Ireland, she has been anxious to help and support me, and I appreciate that.
The decision not to go ahead with the EV production is disappointing to say the least, but it perhaps indicates a wider issue that we face in the manufacturing industry due to rising costs. What can the Minister do to help companies attract more investment through lower energy costs, and what can the Government do to ensure that British jobs are not sent to China, and to ensure that firms that choose to relocate jobs understand that no future help will be forthcoming?