Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman has got his point on the record.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

It is interesting that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) once again outflanks Labour on socialism, but there we are. As a fellow west midlands MP, I am sure my right hon. Friend will be as concerned about the Bill as I am. My constituent, Mr Peter Hughes of EverEdge, which is a west midlands steel manufacturing company, has suggested that:

“While these measures are positioned as protecting primary steel production (such as TATA Steel), they are inadvertently undermining the much larger UK steel-processing sector.”

Does my right hon. Friend share his concern, in particular, the fact that:

“While raw material costs are rising, there are no equivalent restrictions on imported finished products”?

That could be seen—inadvertently, I accept—as a tax on manufacturing. It will certainly damage UK, Shropshire, and west midlands steel manufacturing.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

As a west midlands MP, I absolutely recognise that. In fact, I was with a constituent in Worcester on Friday, Mr Michael Outwin of Industrial & Tractor Ltd, who is going to have to pay a 50% tariff. I tried to table some amendments on the tariff regime, but unfortunately, they were not orderly, so I will limit myself to agreeing with my right hon. Friend. There are many types of steel that will be affected by the tariffs that do not seem to be made in the UK. I would like the Minister to clarify how he expects people to continue manufacturing from the steel that they have been importing for some time, once the tariffs are in place.

On the Opposition amendments, I am sure that everyone in the Committee agrees that the Bill as it stands exposes the taxpayer to unlimited liability for an unlimited length of time. The Bill expropriates businesses, and that will deter inward investment into our country. You do not have to take my word for it, Dame Caroline, as it is also in the Government’s impact assessment that one of the Bill’s potential impacts is that it chills the investment environment in this sector. That is why we have tabled the amendments the Committee is considering today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend raises a specific point about JCB. I am reasonably familiar with its business, and I think its particular concern may be around the sourcing of plate steel. The steel trade measures—the tariffs and quotas that we announced—are designed to ensure that the UK is not subject to subsidised steel, which would damage our upstream industry, and will certainly help to support the upstream sector. Of course, we need a strong upstream sector in order to have a strong downstream sector. The issue with plate steel is that the Dalzell plate mill in Scotland, which is capable of making many of these steels, has not been operating for some time. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and JCB to discuss that in more detail.

[Mark Pritchard]

rose—

[Chris McDonald]

I was just going to address the point the right hon. Gentleman made about the business in his constituency. I am not familiar with that business, but the general approach we have taken is to ensure that the groupings of steel under the trade measures are subject to the tariffs where those steels are or can be made in the UK, accepting that some of them are not but could be made in the UK, including at operations such as Dalzell. It is not always possible to separate all those steels out based on the groupings, so that is the purpose of the quota.

I am always interested to hear of specific examples. I had a meeting with a business last week for which this appeared to be a concern, but once we discussed the issue in detail we found that it was not an issue for the business, because of some of the arrangements that were in place. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to share further details about that case, I am keen to hear them.

[Mark Pritchard]

For clarity—perhaps I was not clear— a constituent of mine runs the company but the company itself is actually in another constituency, and it employs people throughout the west midlands. Could I write to the Minister about that particular case in order to seek more clarity?

[Chris McDonald]

indicated assent.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful for that. I want to make two brief points on tariffs, which the Minister mentioned. First, the Shropshire chamber of commerce has said:

“There is growing concern that tariffs may be applied to certain materials and products that are not currently available from UK manufacturers”.

I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on that. Secondly, concerns have been raised about fabricated steel products that appear to fall outside the tariff regime. In practice, that could create an unintended incentive for steel-processing fabrication work to move overseas to avoid tariff costs. Will the Minister comment on that?

[Chris McDonald]

I am aware of that issue as well, and if the right hon. Gentleman would like to include all those issues in the letter, I will be happy to provide him with a response.

Humble Address: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, there was a long version but, to be honest, I would basically have been reading out the written ministerial statement that we laid at 10.30 am. Much as I love the sound of my own voice, I am not sure that the House does—I think I have united the House on that—so I thought I would go for the shorter version. The papers speak for themselves.

The hon. Lady asked whether there will be more. I suspect that there will not. I think that this is nearly everything—certainly, this is everything that we have come across so far. Of course, we will keep on looking, notwithstanding the complexity around searching in paper-based systems in multiple Departments. I give the House a guarantee that if there is more to publish, I will come back with more, but I suspect that this may be our last tranche.

The hon. Lady asked whether Ministers raised questions at the time. I have published everything that relates to that period. There is nothing else, I think, to be found. The statements that say Ministers were content is the sum total of the response. I suppose, to some degree, that is understandable, bearing in mind that the palace had made it very clear that Her late Majesty was very keen that Andrew be given a job, that Andrew was keen to take on the job, and that the job had previously been done by another member of the royal family in broadly the same terms.

I am afraid that I cannot answer the question about the Lord Mandelson papers for the simple reason that I have been trying very much to keep this Humble Address separate from the other one. We had a different set of procedures to go through. I briefed Members on the Conservative Front Bench, as I did Members on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, earlier this week, when they indicated that they would be perfectly happy if we did not make a statement or respond to an urgent question of any kind, because the papers speak for themselves.

On trade envoys, the hon. Lady makes a perfectly legitimate point. I made the point the last time around that although I understand the connection people make between the role that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor played and that of modern trade envoys, they are actually very different, partly because of the royal nature of Andrew’s role in the past, but also because all trade envoys whom we appoint at the moment are Members of either this House or the House of Lords. They are not only bound by the code of conduct of this House or the other, but bound in exactly the same way as any Minister would be in terms of the code that is expected of them. We make all that extremely clear to trade envoys. Since I have been appointed, I have gathered the trade envoys together on two or three occasions, and whenever a new one is appointed, I sit with them and go through the details.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

They’re Labour.

[Chris Bryant]

I hear the right hon. Member’s chuntering, in his regular application process to be made a trade envoy. I am still considering his proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

If I am honest, I am bit miffed by the attitude of Liberal Democrat Front Benchers, because I have regularly updated them ever since the Humble Address was passed. I have been as open as possible with them, and they have privately indicated to me, regularly, that they were perfectly happy with the progress we were making.

I thought there would be some difficulties for us to overcome, in particular the connection between the Humble Address and the police investigation—obviously, we do not want to do anything that might imperil the investigation. I think all hon. Members would agree that, if the police were to find evidence and felt that the Crown Prosecution Service should take forward charges of misconduct in public office, we would all support the prosecuting authorities in doing their duty. I explained all that to the hon. Lady’s hon. Friends, who indicated that they were perfectly happy with that process. I had thought that the police might ask us not to publish some of the material; in fact, they have been very co-operative and have allowed us to publish everything.

We have made some minor redactions, as I have said. Some of those relate to material that has absolutely nothing to do with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. For instance, where there is talk about the Royal Visits Committee or visits by other members of the royal family, we have redacted that material, as we have material where there are possibilities that we might upset our international allies.

The hon. Lady asked whether any more papers will be coming along. At this point, I am not aware of any. As I said earlier, I suspect that this is the sum total of what we have. She quite rightly makes the point— I think a lot of people are surprised—that, as I think we have known for some time, no vetting was done. It has been standard not to vet members of the royal family. She asked me whether we would vet anybody else who was appointed to such a role. We have no intention of appointing anybody to such a role in the future, but of course we are grateful for the support that the royal family regularly provides with international visits around the world. I think everybody, including those who disagreed with it, has accepted that His Majesty’s visit to the United States of America was a great success. I do not think we should be vetting His Majesty the King, and I do not think the hon. Lady is suggesting that either; I think she was just trying to get grumpy with me.

I have tried to answer all the hon. Lady’s questions. I reassure her that, honestly, we have moved at pace, as fast as we can. It is difficult to find some of the paperwork because it is literally paperwork, and the Government Departments have changed multiple times in the intervening years, but we have moved as fast as we can.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May I just say for the record that I have not made any formal application to be a trade and investment envoy? I previously was a trade and investment envoy under Prime Minister Theresa May, who is now in another place. What I am concerned about is the fact that this particular programme is not cross-party. It was set up by David Cameron, now Lord Cameron, and its strength, I felt, was in the fact that it was cross-party rather than full of mostly Labour Members and Labour peers. I just wanted to put that on the record.

The Minister references the amount of paper-based documentation, but of course, we have not all gone to the cloud overnight. If he goes down to the National Archives at Kew, he will find a lot of paper records going back quite a long time, not just from the last 20 or so years.

On a more substantive point, I want to ask the Minister about the role of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. He will know, as a former Foreign Office Minister, that diplomatic telegrams are sent by embassies—often by ambassadors—back to London, and possibly even to the royal household. I wonder whether any of those have been disclosed in the papers, which I have not had time to read today because they have only just been laid.

Finally, have any of those diptels, or responses to them, made their way to the office of senior officials in the royal household? Did they know anything about the activities of the former Prince Andrew? Who did they speak to about it, and what action, if any, was taken?

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman says he has not applied for a post as a trade envoy. I do not want to show the House the text messages he sent me, but anyway, he makes a fair point. I want to make sure that the trade envoy programme is really effective and delivers around the world. I was with Lord Alderdice the other day, who is not a member of the Labour party, at the London stock exchange when the Uzbek national investment fund was being listed in the UK. His intervention in Uzbekistan has been enormously important in taking forward some of these investments into the UK and listings at the LSE. Indeed, we could see a further investment at the LSE, which would be the biggest ever listing here. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who is a Conservative Member, is also a trade envoy and does a good job.

I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman’s question about diptels. As I said earlier, we are trawling through everything we can to see whether there is anything else that is of relevance under the Humble Address terms. So far, we have published everything we have that is relevant. I can guarantee the House that if there is anything more, we will of course come forward.

I was also asked by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) whether there was any monitoring of the relationship between Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein. I did not answer that question; I apologise. I have seen absolutely nothing to that effect. If I had, I would have published it.

Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes an immensely important point on energy security, which is one reason why we are passionately committed to trying to make sure we are not reliant on oil or oil products from anywhere else in the world, and that we are able to not only meet our net zero targets, but be energy resilient for ourselves. She is also right that we need to work alongside our allies, not only—I would argue—on energy security but in relation to imposing sanctions. We must co-operate with other countries. As I say, our set of processes is remarkably similar to those of Australia, Canada—I think—and several other countries. We need to move forward together if we are to defeat Putin and to ensure we have energy security for our own households and our own businesses.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the Minister, who has been tough on Russia for many, many years. He is sanctioned in Russia, as am I, and we have both previously chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Russia, so I know today’s announcement will sit uncomfortably with him. I welcome the new sanctions through third countries, but I am very concerned—there will be more concern in Kyiv, quite frankly—about what he calls temporary licences. How long is “temporary”? Unfortunately, this money, through these imports, will continue to fund Putin’s illegal war machine against Kyiv. It will kill women, children and men. While the Government are denying a licence to drill in the North sea, they are, unfortunately, giving Putin a licence to kill.

[Chris Bryant]

As it happens I am not on the Russian sanctions list, although when I raised this with the Russian—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady knows that I am very fond of her—

[Mark Pritchard]

The right hon. Lady.

[Chris Bryant]

I am terribly sorry; I am so fond of the right hon. Lady that I think of her in a commonplace way, or should I say a common-sense way? She was, of course, the Minister for common sense—although, despite that, she never took any measures to stop the import of Russian oil into the UK when she was a Minister. Oh dear.

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

I am troubled to hear that my hon. Friend has not been granted access to talk to his local sorting office. I think visiting the sorting office at Christmas and other times is a diary staple for all MPs—it is a really important part of the job. He refers to the anger that posties themselves feel about this. It is not just a job for them. They feel that this is a service, and they recognise as much as anyone else that this situation is simply not good enough. Ofcom examined the prioritisation of parcels a few years ago and found no evidence that it was a central policy, but I have heard stories from so many Members about the prioritisation of parcels, so I intend to raise it with Ofcom this afternoon.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I met the Minister some weeks ago and suggested that he might have to come back to the House if Royal Mail had not improved its services. May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question and the Westminster Hall debate next week, which was secured by another Member?

I raised this issue on the 13 January as a point of order, as you will know, Mr Speaker, and clearly the problem has got worse rather than better. I put on record my thanks to all posties. I think the whole House would like to thank them for all their work in our constituencies. This situation has had a huge social and economic impact on people throughout our constituencies, but what concerns me is that the Minister has referred to being unable to intervene in a private company, and the regulator is of course independent. So what can he do? If there is nothing he can do, perhaps he will come back in a few weeks’ time to repeat that there is nothing he can do, but how does that help people who are waiting for medical results and other important information?

[Blair McDougall]

That is a very fair question. As I mentioned, the Secretary of State brought together the ownership and management to stress the need to get an agreement on reforms to improve service standards. Those things are all connected. I have stressed, in no uncertain terms, my dissatisfaction with current levels of service. On NHS letters, I and Department of Health and Social Care colleagues are pressing to ensure that more NHS bodies take advantage of the barcode system, so that those letters are prioritised. Royal Mail is a private company, but we are exercising the pressure that we can in order to ensure that standards are improved.

Postal Services: Rural Areas

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing this timely and much-needed debate. I had a 10-minute speech, but I think that has gone by the wayside with the three-minute limit.

What we have heard today is the strength of our constituency parliamentary system: Members across this House listening to their constituents—through emails, telephone calls or the occasional letter, when it arrives—and being told from the ground up about the catastrophic failure of the current Royal Mail delivery service. Why is that happening? We have heard already that Royal Mail is prioritising parcels, and I have heard that, too. Clearly that is because it makes more money from parcel deliveries. We heard from the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron)—again, it shows the strength of Parliament, for all its flaws and faults, that we all come from different backgrounds and draw on those experiences—that, in his experience, this is the worst it has been.

In my 21 years in this House, I have never had to raise a point of order, ask an oral departmental question, attend a debate like this or meet with the Minister, as I will next week, to talk about Royal Mail and postal delivery services—never. By the way, that is high praise for Royal Mail and all the fantastic posties we know in our communities. We can all agree that this is not about posties; it is about the senior management of Royal Mail and corporate decision making at the very highest level, which I believe is perhaps a deliberate strategy to upset the Government and Ofcom so that Royal Mail can be in a position to discard the letter delivery service, because it is not profitable enough.

As we have heard from hon. Members, there are real-life consequences. I do not have time to mention all my examples, but I will mention the following, relating to health: “Your letter”—my letter—

“informing us of what steps you have taken took nine days to arrive from the date on the letterhead. We appear to only receive three or four deliveries”

a month. Another reads as follows:

“A hospital letter has not been received although being sent second week in January—from the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital.”

Another reads:

“I am still missing a Test Results letter from the NHS posted on 13th January. They confirmed it was posted by the department when I called after 2 weeks.”

My constituents in Muxton, Newport, Wellington, Shifnal and Albrighton are affected, and there are real-life consequences—important legal documentation, health documentation, cancer results. Time matters. That is why this is a very serious issue. It needs to be investigated, and I hope that the Minister and Ofcom will investigate it urgently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Member makes a really important point. Being a postie is a good job and we need to make sure that it is an attractive job. I will come to my discussions with Royal Mail on those and other matters shortly.

Others have mentioned the broader technological changes in society that have reshaped how people live and work and created challenges for Royal Mail and the Post Office. It is important to remember that these institutions create a sense of continuity in a time of change. We are committed to the universal postal service—the guarantee that letters and parcels will be delivered at a uniform price to every address, however remote.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am glad that the Government are committed to that, but I am not sure that Royal Mail is, and that is the problem. Ofcom fines are clearly not working, because Royal Mails keeps repeating the same mistakes. I hope the Minister will note this moment in time—this debate—because I am very concerned by a situation in which Royal Mail is making the same mistakes and just paying the fines, and baking that into their business plan, and the Minister is saying, as he no doubt will later on, that he has limited powers because it is now a private company. If that is the case, then it is likely that all our constituents will see a further decline in letter delivery services. Will the Minister at least commit that, in those circumstances, the Government will apply for a judicial review on the grounds of failure to disclose necessary documents at the point of sale and failure to deliver the universal service obligation—a legal obligation? If the Government do not intervene, I believe that we will see a complete collapse of the letter delivery service.

[Blair McDougall]

I will come to my discussions with Royal Mail shortly. I know that the right hon. Member and I are due to discuss this issue face to face in a few days’ time. I share the deep frustration that has been voiced today and agree that Royal Mail has not just a legal obligation, but an obligation and a responsibility in our democracy. There are special measures in place around postal votes. Royal Mail has traditionally taken on additional staff and done sweeps of post boxes during elections, and we would absolutely insist and expect that that happens in the elections that the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale raised.

I met Royal Mail’s chief executive and senior management yesterday, specifically to raise concerns that Members across the House have shared with me in recent weeks. Royal Mail knows that it has not always delivered, and I was given an absolute commitment that it will work to deliver the best possible service to customers, while accepting that there have been service challenges.

The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all mentioned concerns about NHS appointment letters not getting through. That is a particular issue that I am pursuing in conjunction with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, because there is an ability to make sure that those get through.

I know that South Shropshire suffered widespread disruption in early January after storms, and as a result there were times when the rotation of mail processes could not be followed and deliveries were affected. The hon. Member for South Shropshire engaged with Royal Mail, and it told me that it welcomes such engagement; it thinks that it is important for hon. Members to continue to engage with it. I know that hundreds of hon. Members will have visited their local sorting offices over Christmas.

I will personally ensure that every single issue that has been raised by hon. Members here today is communicated back to Royal Mail at a senior level, because customers, particularly those in rural areas, must see visible and sustained improvements in reliability, timeliness and delivery office performance. The discussions that we have had today will inform every engagement I have with Royal Mail. As I have said, yesterday I made it clear that people not getting their mail is simply not good enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Member makes a really important point about staff retention. Obviously, management and the workforce are working on implementing not only reforms but the pay deal. Hopefully, that will play an important role in helping to tackle what he has just spoken about.

In addition to my discussions with Royal Mail, I have had detailed discussions with Ofcom, which has an essential role in improving standards. As the hon. Member for Strangford has just pointed out, Ofcom has told Royal Mail that it must publish a credible improvement plan that delivers significant and continuous improvement, and made it clear that, without such a plan, it is likely that fines will continue to be imposed.

The hon. Member for South Shropshire mentioned the context for this debate, which is the change in consumer behaviour and communication. The average household now receives only four letters per week, down from 14, yet the number of addresses in the country has risen by 4 million. To protect the USO for the long term, Ofcom has introduced reforms that are projected to deliver up to £450 million in annual savings, helping to get Royal Mail on to a more financially sustainable basis. We now need Royal Mail to work with its workforce and unions to deliver the service that we all expect.

Several hon. Members raised concerns about now slightly notorious parcel providers other than Royal Mail. Ministers and Ofcom have made it clear that the way they are operating is not good enough and that they are on notice.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous. On the point about the golden share and Royal Mail having been put on notice, what powers of intervention or sanction does the Minister have? Can he provide to my constituents who are listening to this debate the solution they are hoping for? We have not heard it yet.

[Blair McDougall]

As I mentioned a moment ago, when Royal Mail was taken over, the deed included all sorts of assurances about making sure that the owners cannot take value out of the company until they improve service. Their financial interests are deeply tied to the service that our constituents receive.

Turning briefly to the rural post office network, we currently have a network of 11,500 post office branches around the country and most people live within 3 miles of one. However, as Members have pointed out, those averages do not paint the full picture. The Government have invested significantly in the post office network precisely because it provides essential services. Although it is publicly owned, Post Office operates as a commercial business with its own board of directors. It must have the commercial freedom to deliver the branch network within the parameters that we set.

Several Members raised concerns about the Green Paper process and whether we would continue with the current level of service. Our starting assumption was that we would, but we thought it was right to have a debate given how long it has been since we had that conversation. Just finally, we absolutely recognise the importance of banking services and the Post Office, which the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) spoke about. That is why I and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury held a roundtable last month to talk about continuing that relationship.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

First, it was great that my hon. Friend and other MPs brought individual constituency businesses along, because one of the things I want to do as Minister for Trade is try to persuade all 650 colleagues to come along with individual businesses so we can work out where there are barriers to export and try to encourage export growth. If we could release all the MPs, who probably know the businesses in their constituencies far better than the Department does, we would drive forward export growth. She is absolutely right that there are issues with visas and business mobility that we need to address. It is one of the things that the Home Office and the Department are discussing with our European allies. We need to do better on this, and we also need to get to a place where we have mutual recognition of professional qualifications so that people can simply transact their business more effectively.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

With reference to what the Minister said earlier about trade and investment envoys, I remind him that I was a trade and investment envoy to Georgia and Armenia some years ago. The problem is that the trade and investment envoys are now pretty much all Labour, whereas previously, under all Prime Ministers, they were cross-party. Can I suggest that the Government revisit the strength of having a cross-party approach? That might help business exports. I think he publicly offered—unless I misheard—for me to become a trade envoy again; if I was approached, I might do that. On a serious point, on UK Export Finance in high-risk investment areas, such as rebuilding Syria by getting jobs and investment into that country quickly, can I ask that UK Export Finance underwrites with insurance those high-risk investments?

[Chris Bryant]

I noted that there was another application, but just because the right hon. Gentleman has applied for the job, it does not necessarily mean that he will get it. He makes a good point about UK Export Finance, particularly in war-torn and other difficult areas. It is why we set aside a specific amount of money for Ukraine. I was delighted to be in Kyiv the best part of 10 days ago, where the Russian Government are, I would argue, engaging in war crimes by deliberately targeting the heating systems in the city—many elderly and vulnerable people have no heating, electricity or access to water. I was very proud to see Scottish steel and British architects designing the bridges that are helping Ukrainians to get to work again after the original bridges were blown up when the Russians tried to invade as part of their full-scale invasion. He makes a good point about export finance. I have also had discussions about how we can roll that out in relation to Syria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend; it is great that she is a Member of this House because we hear her unambiguous support for small businesses up and down her constituency—not just in the big towns, but in the small villages, as she says. She is right that Wales is a good place for high tech. I am delighted that £1.4 billion of additional investment was announced at the Welsh investment summit in December, taking the total linked investment since the summit was launched to £16 billion. I am sure that that is going to deliver more jobs across south Wales in precisely the way that my hon. Friend asks for.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

While I always enjoy the soliloquies of the Minister of State, it might be an opportunity for the Minister who has responsibility for Royal Mail and postal services to answer this question, given that I wrote to his office about the catastrophic failure of the letter delivery service throughout Shropshire. Would he agree to meet with me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) to discuss resolving that issue?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

I am very happy to do so. The right hon. Member will understand that Royal Mail is a private company regulated by Ofcom, but it is also a critical part of our national economic and social infrastructure. It is not acceptable if people are not getting their post, which is a message that I will deliver to Royal Mail in person next week.

Sale of Fireworks

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Ballinger]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. In my constituency, many people have written to me about the impact of fireworks on dogs. Two people in particular, Marianne and Rosleen, wrote about how excessive fireworks around fireworks night cause their dogs to tremble uncontrollably and run desperately away from their owners. Does he share my concern about the impact on animals, and does he agree with the petitioners that the Government must do more to regulate and control the amount of fireworks we see throughout the year?

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. Some hon. Members are standing. It is only convention that Members sit on a particular side of the room. Perhaps there will be a cross-party love-in today; we have started to see one already. If Members want to move to the other side of the Chamber where there are seats, they are able to do so. I will recognise your individual parties, so do not panic.

[Robbie Moore]

For a moment there, I thought there were some defections to the Conservative party coming across—we can live in hope.

In Riddlesden just before Christmas, fireworks led to the tragic death of a family’s foal, known as King. I know we cannot use images in the debate, but I have an image of King on my desk. It is believed that King, terrified by fireworks, bolted in the night. He was found by local farmer Hannah the next morning, impaled on a piece of farm machinery. Hannah said:

“We had to lift the machinery off him and drag him out, but he sadly died from his injuries. It was just awful, like something out of a horror film.”

Let that be a message to anyone who still says that fireworks are merely a matter of harmless fun—they are not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak—I think that is happening right now, so thank you. Given the popularity and importance of this debate, there will be an informal limit of four and a half minutes on speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lizzi Collinge]

I absolutely agree that the impact on all groups, including businesses, must be considered.

As time moves on, I hope that more organised displays use moving drones, which are quiet and absolutely spectacular.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Before I call Gagan Mohindra, let me say that, while the screen on my left is not showing the time, the screens behind me and on my right are. Members should be conscious of others when speaking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Hume]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, as have others in the debate, that we have passed the point where we used to watch fireworks safely in our back gardens. Fireworks are being let off all the time, every day—all day, sometimes—and I too have seen the terrible effect on animals, particularly dogs that, despite being sedated or whatever the vets recommend, are terrified out of their skins.

The time for talking is over. The evidence is clear. The current guidance and legislation need to be urgently reviewed. The maximum decibel level must be reduced immediately to 90 dB, and I call on the Government to review fireworks regulation in England and Wales urgently with a view to limiting the dangerous and antisocial use of fireworks in private and public spaces.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I will call Sarah Dyke, then Juliet Campbell, and then Gideon Amos.

--- Later in debate ---

[Juliet Campbell]

I absolutely agree that the priority with any changes in policy or legislation must be to take into account all those who are impacted, including animals, as well as the behaviour of people making things dangerous for others.

Any policy put forward on this issue must strike a clear balance between appreciating the events I spoke of earlier and ensuring a long-term reduction in the potential harm of fireworks and in the noise they create. We could learn from our international counterparts, such as the Netherlands, Poland and parts of Italy, where low-noise fireworks have been mandated in certain places and people have felt the benefits.

In conclusion, I hope the debate results in practical, beneficial changes, and that consideration will be given to the valuable contributions made today.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I call Gideon Amos. I will then call Amanda Hack.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for leading this petition debate.

As the MP proudly representing semi-rural North West Leicestershire—a beautiful constituency at the heart of the national forest, surrounded by countryside and farmland, with an abundance of wildlife and livestock, as well as the main home base for Canine Partners—it is unsurprising that I have been emailed by hundreds of constituents about the need to further regulate fireworks, and that more than 650 constituents have put their signatures to both petitions.

Neither petition calls for the banning of fireworks, which is a common misconception around this debate. We are here to discuss minimising the impact they have on people, livestock, neighbours and pets, and it is important that we focus on that. Most people use fireworks in a responsible, safe and appropriate manner, and laws are already in place to address the misuse of fireworks, limiting their sale to licensed traders and making it an offence to use them after 11 pm and before 7 am without express permission.

However, as a dog owner, I know that that does not go quite far enough. Just yesterday, some loud fireworks went off at 5 pm next to my home, which meant no walk for the dog. Unusually, the cats were also frightened. The issue is not just that animals are scared by the noise, but that horses and livestock are caused distress and harm when fireworks go off. Animals are at risk of injuring themselves on fencing or farm equipment or on fixtures and fittings in housing if startled.

Of course, this issue impacts not just animals, but veterans and vulnerable people. For those suffering from PTSD, the loud bangs are huge triggers. Last year, PTSD UK did a study on the effects of fireworks on those with PTSD; 85% of respondents said that fireworks made them feel unsafe in their homes, and 27.2% had sought medical or therapeutic support due to firework-related stress. Surely this cannot continue.

It is not difficult to be a little more thoughtful and kind to our neighbours—to collectively take a step back to think about those loud noises and the impact they have on so many people. Firework displays can be enjoyed without fear, but we must recognise the volume of fireworks, particularly in Leicestershire, where fireworks seem to go on for weeks. After the last fireworks night, when I was back in London in early November, I realised just how quiet it is here compared with my constituency. That is why I supported the Fireworks Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). I thank her for all her hard work, and share her hope for action going forward.

Reducing the maximum noise level for consumer fireworks from 120 dB to 90 dB, as called for in the Bill and as suggested in one of the petitions, seems such a sensible step forward, and could have real, positive impacts on our communities, veterans, vulnerable people, pets, livestock and wildlife. It would also limit the impact of home firework displays, although I agree that we need to look again at the regulations on the sale of fireworks. Ultimately, we must make sure that people are safe.

Firework displays can still be beautiful and fun if they are a little quieter. It is about being that bit more respectful to those around us. Imagine if people who are frightened of fireworks could go and enjoy them because they are that bit quieter. That would mean that more people could enjoy what fireworks displays can offer.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I will call Dr Scott Arthur, Sarah Hall, Kirsteen Sullivan and Elsie Blundell, and then I will vacate the Chair for my replacement. I call Dr Scott Arthur.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard; surely you are irreplaceable.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

You have 10 minutes—that is a joke.

[Dr Arthur]

A change in this domain is inevitable. The Government can choose to be proactive, or they will end up reacting to events—perhaps when someone is killed. It is really important to remember that.

When we had this debate last year, I spoke about the lawlessness we saw in my constituency and in Edinburgh more widely in 2024. Across the city, police officers and firefighters were attacked with fireworks, bricks and bottles, our public transport system was heavily targeted, and a red panda in Edinburgh zoo died. In my constituency, disorder in areas that included Sighthill, Oxgangs, Calder Road and Broomhouse left my constituents terrified and afraid to leave their houses, and a care home, petrol station and care dealership were attacked. It is shameful that disorder of that level took place, and that it was in large part fuelled by easy access to large stocks of fireworks.

In 2024, after that disorder, I visited the police. They issued me with photographs of fireworks they had confiscated from a gentleman who had them in the back of his van, and who was selling them to young people for a profit. In 2025, an individual was caught with £42,000-worth of fireworks that he intended to sell to people on the street. Since then, firework exclusion zones have been set up in Scotland, and those are important, but they are ultimately difficult to enforce.

North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

As I have said in a number of answers, the UK arm of Petrofac is a successful and growing business. Its holding company went into administration today due to a number of factors, including the loss of an international contract. It is nothing to do with our policy in the North sea.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I say to our colleagues on the Green green Benches that of course climate change exists. We need green investment, green jobs and the green transition, but is there not a fundamental flaw at the heart of the Government’s policy, which is that it is ideologically driven? Have we not learned anything from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine about energy security, energy sovereignty and energy independence? I put it to the Minister, with the greatest respect, that in the medium to long term, if we continue down this track too quickly, without a stable transition for workers and the energy sector, the Government could end up undermining the UK’s national security.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for how he has put the question. Energy security is at the heart of what we are trying to do, because our exposure to fossil fuels is what led to some of the most significant price spikes in all our constituents’ bills—spikes that they still face today. Our continued exposure to the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—even though none of that Russian gas now reaches us—is because of the international markets; they drive this forward. The only way to take back control of our energy is by building the clean power system of the future, and the pace of that transition is absolutely right. We are driving forward momentum, to make sure that the investment comes forward to create jobs in the economy right now. That has been successful; there has been £50 billion of private investment just in the past year. My view is that 10 or 20 years ago, both under the previous Labour Government and under the Conservative Government, we should have recognised that a transition was under way and put in place a credible plan for protecting the jobs. That was not done, but we are determined to do it, so that the transition for oil and gas workers is into good, well-paid jobs in renewables, carbon capture, hydrogen and other technologies, and we have a genuinely just and prosperous transition.

Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

We are obviously keen to do what we can to support the Scottish whisky industry. I have been to see it and understand how important it is. The definitions of energy-intensive industries were developed under the previous Government, and we have no immediate plans to change those, but I will take away the right hon. Gentleman’s point and look into it.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On net zero, I think there is a national consensus on making the environment better, creating green jobs and improving energy security, but will the Minister recognise that for many people, consumers and companies out there—particularly small businesses, by the way; it is not all about large ones—there is too much happening, too soon and too fast? Rather than having regressive and punitive taxes on industry and small businesses, there should be more education and more incentives to change consumer and company behaviour.

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. We have a national consensus that we need to act, and I think the population are with us on that. They understand that we need to make sure we have a planet for our children and our grandchildren and that we need to do everything we can. As was said this week, we want to tread lightly on people’s lives, and of course we do not want to inflict regressive and punitive taxation. We want to make sure we are supporting industry and business, and we are looking at how we can help to incentivise the changes that we need to see.

Harland & Wolff

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her expertise and insight on this matter. I understand the point that she makes, but it is perhaps one for my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. I will ask them to engage with her on those ambitions to remedy the absence of capability, but I believe that that would be challenging.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I welcome the statement, and particularly the protection of the fleet solid support programme, but I join my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), in saying that we will have to wait to see the details. In principle, however, the deal sounds very encouraging indeed, and I congratulate the Secretary of State and all his team and officials for getting it over the line. He mentions world-class shipbuilding in the UK. He said from the Dispatch Box that national security is the foundation of the plan for change, and his Department’s online statement talked about sovereign capability, but does he accept that without steel, ships cannot be built? Will he take this opportunity to say what more can be done, in a dangerous world, to reduce the UK’s increasing reliance on imports from elsewhere, including from Sweden and Asia, so that ships can be delivered in times of conflict or war?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I very much share the right hon. Gentleman’s aspirations. He will know that most defence steels are higher end—they are specialised and tend to come from electric arc furnaces—and one challenge that we have inherited relates to the two remaining blast furnace sites in the UK. We have improved the situation in Port Talbot, but we could not change direction, with the blast furnaces going offline before the arc furnace was installed. We have inherited an even more challenging position in relation to Scunthorpe, but we are working closely with the company to find a solution.

I believe that we are missing real capabilities in the UK. I can see the economic and business case for plate mill, for instance, and for the long-term question of direct reduced iron in steel production. The steel strategy is part of delivering on that. A whole range of horizontal policies, particularly on energy prices, would have to be in a corresponding position for us to do that. The fact that the UK has such a small steel sector relative to the size of our economy makes us an outlier among developed nations and suggests that there is a real evidence base for improving it, and I will work with any Member of the House to deliver that.