British Steel

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Nusrat Ghani

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

I do not, because it was a plan or proposal put out by British Steel. We have not concluded negotiations.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

This is a question of national security. It is not just a commercial decision. A specific question was asked of the Minister by the shadow Secretary of State on job losses specifically in Scunthorpe. Is that figure of 2,000 correct?

[Ms Ghani]

Negotiations have not concluded. We are continuing to be in intensive talks with British Steel. We wish to provide the support that is needed to support the steel sector and steel jobs but negotiations will continue. We need to make sure that due diligence is done and that we get value for money for taxpayers, whose money we are going to put on the table. But look at what we achieved at Port Talbot—a sector that was unable to confirm its future until we provided it with the financial support that it needed.

Automotive Industry

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Nusrat Ghani

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

It is an international market that is fighting for supply chains. The SMMT was clear that, when manufacturing production was low, that was down to access to products and critical minerals, which I will come on to. As well as taking care of the industry, I am responsible for critical minerals and for supply chains. We are working with the industry, which I met just this morning, to put together a supply chain import strategy, which will be out in the autumn. We need to get a number of things right to make it even easier for the sector to do even better than it already is, but it is in a really good place and I will go on to mention some of the facts and stories about that.

The sector is indeed a jewel in the crown of our economy. It is vital, because of where it is based across the country, to supporting the levelling-up agenda, net zero and advancing global Britain. Our automotive industry employs 166,000 people, adds over £70 billion to the UK economy and is our second largest exporter of goods. The UK is proud to be home to major global manufacturers such as JLR, Nissan, Stellantis, Toyota, BMW and Ford. But that is not the whole of the UK’s automotive eco-system: we have a lot more to be proud of, from our luxury and performance sector, including Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Aston Martin, McLaren and Lotus, to heavy goods vehicles and buses, such as Leyland Trucks, Wrightbus, Alexander Dennis and Switch, as well as the future of mobility, encompassing connected and autonomous vehicles. Those manufacturers are supported by a diverse, resilient and growing UK supply chain that spans a wide range of components and includes companies such as Bosch, NSK, Meritor and Swindon Pressings. These are valued partnerships, and the sector knows that my Department for Business and Trade is the Government’s first port of call to help businesses grow and flourish, and to create jobs, apprenticeships and opportunities around the country.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for being generous with her time. All the manufacturers that she mentioned face a cliff edge in January 2024, with the 10% tariff. What are the Government going to do about it? It is desperate in terms of those jobs in our communities.

[Ms Ghani]

I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the rules of origin tariff. That is why we are working hard and negotiating with the EU, and working with our partner representative groups within the EU, so that they can be lobby as well. This is not just an issue in the UK. This is a European issue too, and we are making sure that those voices are heard loud and clear with our partners across Europe.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Nusrat Ghani

Report stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

I will just make a little bit of progress.

As I have said, the sunset clause is necessary and is the quickest and most effective way to pursue retained EU law reform. It is only right to set the sunset and the revocation of inherited EU laws as the default position. It ensures that we are proactively choosing to preserve EU laws only when they are in the best interests of the UK. It ensures that outdated and unneeded laws are quickly and easily repealed. It will also give the Government a clear timeline in which to finish the most important tasks. Some retained EU laws are legally inoperable, and removing them from the statute book easily is good democratic governance. Requiring the Government to undergo complex and unnecessary parliamentary processes to remove retained EU law that is no longer necessary or operable, and can more easily be removed, is not good governance.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Surely parliamentary sovereignty is giving Members of Parliament control, not the Executive or bureaucrats in Whitehall.

Planning for the Future

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Nusrat Ghani

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important debate and for putting net zero—there is a big gap—at the heart of her argument. I agree wholeheartedly with that.

I also thank the 11 Members or so who contributed—initially, 15 were down to speak, but it has been a case of shifting sands. I thank the right hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), for St Ives (Derek Thomas), for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), for Warrington South (Andy Carter), and for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), and I certainly cannot forget our colleagues from Cornwall. We have heard their powerful voices today, and they are clearly showing off about being in tier 1. It has been a powerful, informed discussion and debate.

The proposals in the White Paper come at a time when we hear much talk about building, not just to solve the housing crisis but as a way to boost the economy, create new sustainable jobs, help us to meet the net zero goals and, very importantly, respond to the covid crisis. Some of the proposals, at first glance, are reforms that we on the Labour Benches welcome and have called for in the past—timely local plans, moving from the analogue, paper-centric world to the digital world, while not excluding others, and improving the quality and design standards. Yet people do not have to scratch beneath the surface to discover that the very heart of the proposals—the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire referred to the details—is a huge shift of control and influence from communities and local democracy to well-resourced developers and Whitehall. People across the Chamber have certainly said that.

In reality the proposals do little to build back better, more beautiful, or greener. In many cases they do exactly the opposite—a point made powerfully by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. They create permitted development monstrosities, high rises, over-development, two-storey extensions on every house in suburbia, in every street, and give a green light, in many areas, to ghettos of houses in multiple occupation. We do not need more of those.

Coming on the back of a decade of austerity and the current economic crisis, the reforms are a further attack on councils. They strip away power and finance from local authorities and, with that, take away communities’ ability to have their voice heard throughout the planning process. That case was put forward powerfully by the hon. Member for Totnes.

The zonal approach of growth, renewal and protection is of particular concern. It risks creating a free-for-all in which well-resourced developers and associated lobbyists carve up our villages, towns and cities, creating further segregation, and encroaching on our green belt. The hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) and I share a border, in Moore. My concern is that the approach will do nothing of the sort—it will just maintain the status quo. Undoubtedly we will have a debate about that locally, but we have a shared interest.

The vast majority of councillors throughout the land believe that the proposals are undemocratic, including 61% of Conservative councillors. More than 250,000 supporters of the countryside charity the Campaign to Protect Rural England argue the same. I think we have all been lobbied by them—rightly, along with the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Royal Institute of British Architects, Civic Voice, and many more in and beyond the housing sector. Only yesterday The Times reported that the Prime Minister stood up for his constituents and took advantage of the very right that he wants to abolish for others, opposing a development in his constituency using the current system. What role does the Minister believe residents and councillors should have throughout the planning process?

As has been argued in the Chamber today, good place-making must keep planning local, not developer-centric and certainly not based on a diktat from a Whitehall algorithm. That algorithm instructs local planning authorities to build 161% more homes in London and the south-east but 28% fewer homes overall in the north—pouring concrete over London and the south-east, while hollowing out the north. How does that fit with the Government’s levelling up agenda for communities in the midlands and the north?

Like organisations such as the Woodland Trust, I would also like to hear the Minister’s comments about environmental protections in this White Paper. It is not at all clear how the Government can reconcile the proposals in the Environment Bill, and the Prime Minister’s comments about “newt-counting” do not exactly instil confidence that the Government take ecological or environmental protection seriously.

There are still 1 million unbuilt housing permissions from the last 10 years; I think the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich made that point. Yet the White Paper does nothing to explain how we will ensure that developers either “use it or lose it”—that is, lose such permissions. Also, the lack of any mention of social housing in the White Paper means that we will remain over-reliant on private builders and market cycles to get homes built.

If we are serious about maximising housing delivery and meeting building targets, the Government need to stop ignoring the answer that is right in front of them and build a new generation of social housing—and, yes, make it net zero. Just 6,500 homes for social rent were built last year. The White Paper on social housing, which was published recently, has some good things in it, but the key thing that it was lacking was a plan to build more social homes.

The Local Government Association found that in the last five years 30,000 affordable homes would have gone unbuilt if the Government’s proposal to scrap section 106 for developments under 40 or 50 homes had been in place, which would have affected rural areas such as Cornwall; I have to mention Cornwall again. Can the Minister set out the evidence behind the proposal to scrap section 106?

I would also like to hear from the Minister about the new levy that is being proposed to replace section 106 and the community infrastructure levy. We have had very little detail about how this new levy would work. The current proposals seem to mean that councils would provide up-front cash, and yet they would really struggle to fund infrastructure. So, more detail on that would be very much appreciated. Why are the Government continuing with their absurd extensions to permitted development? They know very well that such extensions create bad homes and blight communities; we have all seen examples of those things in our own communities.

I am pleased that the Minister, responding to our prayer against the recent statutory instrument in this area and a potential Back-Bench rebellion, finally recognised that space and light are important for human habitation; there must be at least minimum amounts of both. I urge him to go further and adopt some of the principles in the Healthy Homes Bill, to give local communities a voice again on these matters.

Members from all parties do not want streets, villages, towns and cities to be littered with inappropriate two-storey extensions that pitch neighbour against neighbour, and nor do they want high streets to be hollowed out, with former shops being converted into HMOs and wheelie bins flowing into the streets of the towns and cities that we represent. There is nothing beautiful, and nothing greener or better, about that reality.

In conclusion, we cannot cheat our way out of the housing crisis; building healthy and sustainable homes should be the response to this pandemic. However, clear and measurable targets for net zero are currently missing from these proposals. We should put communities at the heart of good place-making, strengthening and resourcing our planning system, and extending local democracy, to build good-quality housing for all.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

Before I ask the Minister to respond, Members should note that this debate will conclude at 4.12 pm. If the Minister keeps his response to about nine minutes, that will leave time for Ms Olney to respond as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

My right hon. Friend knows that we have spoken about Beeston on a number of occasions, and I apologise for having failed to visit the station already. I will do my very best to accompany her to Beeston station in the near future.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Will the Minister ensure that the Access for All project is delivered in Northwich station in my constituency, to allow people with mobility problems and disabilities to use it?

[Ms Ghani]

I cannot provide that assurance right here and now. We had 300 nominations and the decisions will be made in April. If the station was nominated—I do not have the list in front of me—I will ensure that it is considered as efficiently as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

Indeed, we recognise the need to keep traffic moving on local roads during construction, primarily for the benefit of residents and businesses. Under current plans, junction 15 of the M6 is an important access route for HS2 construction traffic. We recognise that it also provides an important access route to the Stoke-on-Trent area. HS2 Ltd is working closely with Highways England to minimise the impact on the M6 and consider any opportunities for co-ordinated delivery with a smart motorway.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of trends in the number of bus journeys in England.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The Bus Services Act 2017 presents local authorities with new powers to bring about change and unlock the potential for the bus service industry to increase passenger numbers. Since 1982, bus usage has fallen, but it is variable across the country. Passenger journeys on local bus services in England have decreased by 4% since 2009-10, to 4.44 billion in 2016-17.

[Mike Amesbury]

Does the Minister believe that there is a link between her Government’s 33% cut to the bus budgets and bus patronage falling to a decade low? What action has the Secretary of State taken over the past 18 months to rectify that?

[Ms Ghani]

Bus patronage is actually increasing for people who go to work—3 million people choose to travel to work on a bus—and 60% of people who use public transport use the bus. Increasing bus patronage is at the forefront of the Government’s bus agenda. It is vital to combating congestion and reducing emissions. Government provide about £1 billion of funding for concessionary travel every year, and around £250 million will be paid this year to support bus services in England via the bus service operators’ grant.

Universal Credit Project Assessment Reviews

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Nusrat Ghani

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement on making available the reports requested by the Labour party. I am pleased to speak in this debate and to challenge the belief among some Opposition Members that helping people into work and away from relying on state welfare is just too difficult and too complicated. I accept that our work as MPs is not easy. We all do our best for our constituents, and I accept that most often they come to us in the last resort and expect our help. But the privilege of being elected as an MP is to take on and tackle sensitive subjects and to unravel bad policies which hold people back, regardless of how complicated they seem.

I do not need to reference emails and surgery cases to know that the only way to help people out of poverty is through work. I grew up in social housing, where families had not worked for two or three generations, with households in which children had never seen their parents go out to work, and where they were told—where I was told—time and again to “lower your expectations and stay in line for welfare.” Aspirations to work were met with cliff-edge drop-offs and the loss of benefits. Why would someone take a risk to secure a job that may or may not work out when that is weighed up against losing benefits and the drama it takes to get back on to welfare to make sure they have a home? For too many people, the risk is too great. That is why universal credit works. It tapers as a person secures more work and does what welfare is meant to do: it provides a hand up and a safety net.

[Mike Amesbury]

The Labour party is what it says on the tin: we are the party of work. Many of those in receipt of universal credit, and tax credits before that, are actually in work, with many of them on low pay.

[Ms Ghani]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. There are now more people with better opportunities—whether children going to better schools, more working-class kids going to university or people on lower incomes taking more of that income home to support their families. I grew up in a Labour stronghold where I was told repeatedly to know my place, which was to remain on welfare like everybody else in my community. That is why the Conservative party introduced universal credit, and why it is so important that we ensure that it is successfully delivered. Universal credit is founded on the belief that work should always pay, and it encourages people to find work and not stay trapped in the vicious cycle of the benefits system.

The request for the publication of the reports in the motion has been granted. I am, though, a little perplexed about why we need to see reports on assessments from back in 2012 when we have facts and figures that we can rely on today. I hope that the Minister can shed some light on that. Here is what is already in the public domain. Critics should welcome the fact that each person on universal credit is treated as an individual and provided with tailored support, working around their personal needs. For the first time, people have a named work coach. This is the first time that their personal requirements and unique needs are being assessed. It is the first time that their childcare, housing or work support is being assessed. More importantly, this will be the first time that many people from my community have had real support that tackles their needs and supports their aspirations to improve their and their families’ lives. They are no longer just a number to be told to get to the back of the queue.

Let us not forget that the previous welfare system created cliff edges, discouraged people from working for more than 16 hours a week and, most damning of all, trapped 1.5 million on out-of-work benefits for nearly a decade. I challenge anyone who would disagree that those people had been failed by the system.