Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The recent British Library incident is a stark reminder of the terrifying security risk and enormous cost of cyber-attacks, and recent ministerial answers have revealed a shockingly high number of red-rated IT systems across Government Departments. I hear the Secretary of State’s words, but given that the Government’s cyber-security strategy tells us that

“transparent central governance structures will maintain oversight and responsibility for cross-government cyber security risk”,

will he now set out the Government’s timetable for remedying this shocking situation and explain how he will keep the House updated on progress?

[Oliver Dowden]

We know about this in the first place because of the work undertaken by the Government to fully understand the cyber-security risks facing this country. We are better prepared than most countries around the world. None the less, in respect of the red- rated systems, we are developing remediation plans, all of which will be in place by next year. We are tracking progress and are confident that we will achieve over £1 billion in efficiency savings, in addition to achieving greater resilience by next year.

Defending the UK and Allies

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my right hon. Friend about the destabilising influence of the Iranian regime. We will continue to work constructively with our allies to ensure that we do not just protect our citizens at home, but reduce and degrade Iran’s ability to destabilise the region further.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement on funding for Ukraine and the UK-Ukraine security co-operation agreement, which, in line with the NATO-Ukraine commission’s programme, focuses now on increasing Ukraine’s defence industrial base and ensuring that it can provide long-term assistance against Russia’s aggression. Can he tell us what discussions he had with President Zelensky about exactly how both Government and UK manufacturers will be involved in implementing that in full?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the necessity of doing that. It was a feature of our conversations last week, but we also facilitated a visit by some of our leading defence companies to Ukraine at the end of last year to further the co-operation between our two countries. There is a path forward to see how we can build that—to build the defence industrial base in Ukraine to help it to defend itself in future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

NHS staff are at the heart of what makes our health service work. There would not be an NHS without them—without their skill, their expertise and their dedication. I was delighted I could pay them my thanks last week in person. I join my hon. Friend in thanking NHS staff not just in his constituency but across the country for their dedicated hard work and public service.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Q13. It is now six years since Bishop James Jones published the Hillsborough report, and only today, finally, do we get the Government’s response. When will the Government introduce not just a voluntary charter, an independent public advocate or a code of ethical policing, but a full Hillsborough law to force those in public office to co-operate fully with investigations, and to guarantee fairer funding to enable those affected by a major tragedy to challenge public institutions?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, I am profoundly sorry for what the Hillsborough families have been through, and my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary will be making a full statement immediately after PMQs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his new role. He will know that time is of the essence, with a victim of this scandal dying every four days. He also knows that there is nothing to stop the Government setting up a compensation scheme now. The failure to do so is weighing heavily on the minds of those affected. The cynical would think that the Government are just kicking the issue into the long grass. Can the Minister tell us when he hopes to report on preparations for compensation and appoint a chair for an appropriate body to run the scheme?

[John Glen]

What I can say to the hon. Lady is that I am familiar with the range of activities that need to take place. I am getting into the detail of every single one of them, but I have to gain collective agreement before I can announce anything to this House. This House will be the first place I make any announcements, when I have secured that. I acknowledge her frustrations, and I am doing everything I can. I will update the House as quickly as I can.

British Steel

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

I cannot disagree with that. I have been reading up on Scunthorpe steel: it has been used to create structures ranging from the Sydney Harbour Bridge to the London Eye, which demonstrates the breadth and the depth of its history.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The feedstock for the Trostre tinplate works in Llanelli is steel of a quality that can currently only be produced in the blast furnace process. Following the devastating news that Port Talbot blast furnaces will be closed by the end of March, leaving Trostre dependent on imported steel—quite possibly produced to lower environmental standards abroad, and certainly not saving on emissions—may I ask the Minister to stop just quoting commercial decisions, and tell us what strategy the Government have to develop the green technologies of the future here in the UK and to keep virgin steel production here as well?

[Ms Ghani]

I had a feeling that I had mentioned that a few times. We have a fund of about £1.5 million, partly aimed to ensure that we are adopting, testing and commercialising new technologies to enable the steel sector to decarbonise. We have done a huge amount of work on electricity and we are also considering the possibilities of hydrogen, so we are looking into alternative sources of energy to help the sector in the UK. I know there are challenges for places such as the hon. Lady’s constituency because of the sort of steel that they need, but the fact remains that more and more different types of steel can be made to a high standard and a high grade in electric arc furnaces.

Debate on the Address

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Even if we were not expecting a great deal, the King’s Speech is even more disappointing than we could have imagined. It is weak, empty and full of platitudes. To make matters worse, it builds on a very poor track record.

The Government say that they want to create growth in the economy, but there is nothing in the King’s Speech to explain how. Their track record is abysmal. They have completely failed over 13 years to get any proper growth in the economy. Wages have stagnated while inflation has skyrocketed, leaving people struggling in a massive cost of living crisis.

Creating growth in the economy really matters. It is about people having good jobs and wages that keep pace with inflation, and it is about our having the money to invest in improving our sorely overstretched public services. Labour would prioritise growth and invest in the green jobs of the future. That is why we need a change of Government, a Labour Government, and we need that change urgently.

We saw just last week how big international companies are now making their investment decisions for the future. Although other countries are wooing companies for their investment in the green jobs of the future, this Conservative Government are letting down workers who worked hard, often in difficult circumstances, during covid and adapted rapidly to change.

Take steel, which is a vital foundation industry. For years, this Conservative Government have been half-hearted in their support for the steel industry. They have failed to tackle the high energy prices that make our steel uncompetitive, and they have failed to invest in the future. Worse, there are 20-plus projects across Europe looking at how to decarbonise the blast furnace process, but there is not one project in the UK.

The Conservative Government, in their so-called big announcement back in September, promised only £0.5 billion to invest in an electric arc furnace in Port Talbot, whereas Labour has recognised and committed £3 billion to decarbonise the steel industry. That is the sort of investment needed to get the necessary technologies to green the blast furnace process. Yes, we need electric arc furnaces to recycle more of the 800 million tonnes of steel that are currently exported for recycling, but we also need to develop the necessary technology to transform the blast furnace process for extracting iron from iron ore.

Just yesterday, we heard the dreadful news that the Chinese-owned British Steel is closing down blast furnace steel production in Scunthorpe, replacing it with two electric arc furnaces. This comes hot on the heels of the devastating news in south-west Wales this past week that Tata Steel is planning to close down the blast furnaces at Port Talbot by the spring of next year, long before the electric arc furnace will be operational. This means a massive loss of income for thousands of workers and their families, and for the associated contractors, transport companies and businesses in the community. This affects not just Port Talbot but the whole of south-west Wales.

Workers are fearful for the future of the Trostre tinplate works in my constituency. Trostre needs steel of a quality that can currently be produced only by the blast furnace process. We have assurances that, when the blast furnaces in Port Talbot close, Tata will import steel from abroad to feed Trostre. But it makes no sense to lose all those jobs here in the UK and then to import steel made in blast furnaces abroad, quite likely with much lower environmental standards than our own. That does nothing to cut emissions.

Furthermore, if we lose the means to produce virgin steel in this country, we will be at the mercy of other countries for the price we have to pay. If there is a world shortage, we may even not be able to get the steel we need for our vital industries. The fear at Trostre is about the medium and long-term future. If we no longer have steel produced just down the railway track in Port Talbot, and if we have to import it from abroad, how economically viable will we be in comparison with competitor factories in the same company elsewhere?

Tata’s timescale to close down the blast furnaces in Port Talbot by March next year has come as a massive shock for Port Talbot and for us in Trostre. The prospect of Port Talbot colleagues losing jobs and Trostre becoming dependent on imported steel is very worrying. We now need proper consultation between Tata and the unions, but I also urge the Government to do everything possible to ensure that we keep steel production in this country.

We are at a turning point in our industrial history but, with this Government, we are in very real danger of being left behind. It is as if they are turning back to the horse and cart when everybody else is moving on to the steam train. I am sure many Members will remember the 2012 Olympic opening ceremony in which, alongside the celebration of our NHS, we saw a portrayal of the industrial revolution, for which the UK is globally renowned. Just as we took the lead on that industrial revolution, we should be leading the way now on the green industrial revolution. But with this Government we are not—we are being left behind.

I have met representatives of international companies that have factories in the Llanelli constituency, and they are desperate to see cheaper energy and a proper industrial strategy from this Government. Car manufacturers and others are making crucial decisions about where to invest in new production lines and to build new factories. They recognise the loyalty of the workforce in Llanelli and other parts of the UK, who have adapted to many changes over the years, and they would be keen to invest. However, when companies have factories spread across the globe, and they see the USA offering incentives through its Inflation Reduction Act and the EU with similar programmes, and they compare the cheaper energy prices in competitor countries and the proper industrial strategies in other countries, but see nothing coming from the UK Government, will it be any surprise if they choose to invest elsewhere? We will be left just with the current production lines limping along until their products are no longer required, while the shiny new factories will go elsewhere.

There is no time to waste. The rest of the world is forging ahead with the green industrial revolution and they are not going to wait for the UK Government when other countries are providing real incentives, as well as cheaper energy. It is all very well mentioning growth in the King’s Speech, but we absolutely need to see some flesh on the bones.

This Conservative Government’s reference to energy in the King’s Speech beggars belief. While the rest of the world is going forward, making huge investment in green energies and technologies, we see the UK Government going backwards, promoting the issuing of more oil and gas licences, which, by the Government’s own admission, will not bring down energy bills for consumers. We have huge potential in the UK to produce cheap energy through renewables, slashing prices for households, businesses and industry, while also cutting our emissions to zero—this is a win-win situation. We have huge potential for wind energy, both onshore and offshore, and some of the highest tidal ranges in the world, with capacity around the UK to produce electricity 24/7, not to mention the potential for wave technologies, hydro and solar. By fast-tracking the development of renewables, we can both slash domestic energy bills and fuel a new green industrial revolution, with a massive roll-out of energy.

That is precisely what we in the Labour party intend to do. We have a plan to supercharge investment in renewables, including with the creation of GB Energy. However, we are seeing an abject failure by this Conservative Government to develop renewables. What do we see on renewable energy in the King’s Speech? The Government are going to “seek to attract” investment in renewables. That went well in the Celtic sea offshore energy auction, didn’t it? Not a single bid was made because the Government failed to respond to the companies’ pointing out that inflation was driving up costs. The Republic of Ireland recognised the problem and got a successful auction; we got not one single bid, but it got a successful auction. The Government have to do better than just trying to attract investment.

Of course, that comes on top of years of banning the development of onshore wind in England and a failure to lift that ban properly; stalling on solar; shilly-shallying and then cancelling the electrification of the south Wales mainline to Swansea; and long waits for connections to the grid. In contrast, Labour has a plan to supercharge investment in renewables. Time is of the essence, and I urge the Government to do much more to develop renewables, to develop an industrial strategy and to invest. That would give companies real incentives and the certainty that they need to invest in green jobs in the UK. Sadly, this Government’s record is abysmal, which is why we desperately need a change and the hope that a Labour Government could bring by investing in the jobs of the future, fast-tracking the development of renewables, improving our NHS, increasing opportunities for our young people and making our streets safer. That is why I urge the Prime Minister to think again about his King’s Speech and to put more in it to provide the investment that we need. If he cannot do that, we need change and we need an election as soon as possible.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Honesty in Politics

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for leading this debate on a subject—honesty in politics and how MPs can be made more accountable for what they say in public and in Parliament—that was determined by the Petitions Committee but is clearly close to his heart, and for explaining very clearly the intent of the petitioners.

We all know the shocking reason why the issue of MPs telling the truth has become a matter of such public concern over the past few years: while people up and down the country were making huge sacrifices to comply with the covid rules and help to keep us all safe, with families unable to be with their loved ones in their dying moments, friends unable to attend funerals, businesses struggling and young people missing out on education and social contact, there were parties at No. 10 Downing Street. As if that were not enough, to add insult to injury, we had the unedifying spectacle—that is very modest language, Mrs Murray—of the then Prime Minister, himself in denial, squirming around and changing his story at the Dispatch Box. We can understand why the leader of the Labour party, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), called for him to be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

The problem, as we all know, is that that behaviour by a former Prime Minister has completely shattered the public’s trust in politics. That is why we have said that, for Labour, it is a priority to try to restore trust in politics and to restore standards in public life. For us, that has to start from the top, with the Prime Minister and the Government. It is of paramount importance that all MPs should be honest, but clearly the influence and impact of what Ministers say is much greater. They affect people’s spending decisions. They affect people’s planning decisions. They are crucial in terms of what the future of the country holds.

We cannot continue with the current situation, in which the Prime Minister appoints his own ethics adviser, who can instigate investigations only on the say-so of the Prime Minister, and in which sanctions can be imposed only with the agreement of the Prime Minister. Sadly, for all the rhetoric, the current Conservative Government have done precious little to restore the public’s trust in politicians.

We have set out very clearly that a Labour Government would create a genuinely independent standards watchdog, the ethics and integrity commission, which would be completely independent of political control and would oversee and enforce standards in Government, ending the current situation in which the Prime Minister is the judge and jury on every case of ministerial misconduct. The current independent adviser on Ministers’ interests and the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which advises on former Ministers taking up jobs, would be subsumed into that new ethics and integrity commission.

The new commission would have the power to launch investigations, without ministerial approval, into misconduct and breaches of the ministerial code; to put forward sanctions for breaches of that code; to recommend changes to ensure that the code is fit for purpose; to insist that former Ministers apply to the commission before accepting any job; and to ban former Ministers from lobbying, consultancy or any paid work related to their former job. That is how we want to clean up Government. Disappointingly in the light of the events described by hon. Members today, the Government have not brought forward proposals for much-needed reform to create independence in the system.

The conduct of MPs has traditionally been a matter for the House of Commons and the Speaker. I thank those hon. Members who have taken part in today’s debate and set out their proposals for how things could be improved: my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant); the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats; the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), the Westminster leader of Plaid Cymru; and the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), the SNP spokesperson . It is an important feature of our democracy that we safeguard freedom of speech and that we should be able to express ourselves forthrightly. Inevitably, there will be strong differences of opinion. The question is this: how do we uphold the highest standards in the House while at the same time safeguarding freedom of speech? How effectively do the current procedures work?

Back in April 2022, the Leader of the Opposition called on Mr Speaker to allow a debate on a motion to refer the then Prime Minister to the Committee of Privileges for assertions that

“appear to amount to misleading the House”.—[Official Report, 21 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 351.]

In the event, the motion was agreed nem. con. As we know, a referral was made and sanctions were imposed. Those included a 90-day suspension, which would have allowed a recall petition had the Member not resigned. Therefore, democratically elected Members were able to do the right thing and back, or at least not oppose, the investigation of a fellow Member, albeit he was the Prime Minister, for misleading the House. However, the day before, Ministers had been minded to table an amendment to the motion, so perhaps there is a case for a stronger ministerial code that would prevent that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda has put on record, there are real concerns about that process, and there is potential for streamlining it.

As I said, the conduct of MPs in the Chamber has traditionally been a matter for the House of Commons and the Speaker, but it behoves each one of us not to tarnish the reputation of Parliament by knowingly lying to—or misleading, as it is always put—the House, and therefore lying to the public. I am sure that the majority of Members endeavour to be truthful the majority of the time. However, as Members have pointed out today, a Member is more likely to get into trouble and be thrown out if they point out that another MP has lied than if they are the perpetrator of the lie in the first place.

While there are a number of ways in which a Minister can correct the record, that is not the case for other MPs. They can choose to make a correction by using a point of order, but that is not referenced to their original statement, which remains in Hansard. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, the former Chair of the Committee on Standards, pointed out how it could be made easier for an MP to make a correction and how the information could be made more accessible. What thought have the Government given to that proposal, and what will be their position on the proposed amendment when it is put to the House? What discussions has the Minister had with the Leader of the House and Mr Speaker about ways to foster a zero-tolerance culture towards telling and repeating lies in the House and to rebuild trust in Parliament?

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton explained the potential complications of making it a criminal offence for MPs to lie to Parliament or to the public. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd explained how her ten-minute rule Bill, which would do that, would work. However, this has to be led from the top, which is why we in the Labour party think it very important to get the role of the Prime Minister, the ministerial code and the idea of an independent ethics and integrity commission off the blocks as a starter.

What proposals do the Government have for putting things right now? In the light of the events that have taken place, it is extraordinary that we have not seen significant action to create any form of independence in respect of ethics and integrity. What would the Minister propose to ensure that we have a better culture in Parliament and a better understanding of what honesty in politics means, and that we can demonstrate to the public that we are trying to clean up our act?

Tata Steel: Port Talbot

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

My right hon. Friend, who spent a considerable amount of time as Welsh Secretary, knows very well how these relationships work. He is absolutely right: the negotiations and securing the £500 million investment have taken place via the Government here. It was important for us to make sure that the Secretary of State for Wales and everyone else involved were across this, too. He is absolutely right that there is a difference in the steel produced—my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), the hon. Lady for steel, pointed out the importance of virgin steel—but there is a growing circular economy for steel produced in electric arc furnaces. It utilises scrap metal that is in abundance in the UK—we export tonnes of it—so there is a huge amount of work to be done in electric arc furnaces. That is why the business model is so substantial and why Tata put in so much money, with our £500 million going into the £1.25 billion commitment in total.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The future viability of Tata’s tinplate works at Trostre in Llanelli depends both on the proximity of Port Talbot and on the production there of the grade of steel that can currently only be produced in the blast furnace process. While I welcome the recognition of the need for increased electric arc furnace capacity in the UK, what assurances can the Minister give me that the Port Talbot blast furnace will continue to supply steel to Trostre until such time as greener technologies are developed there? What will she do to support the development of those technologies in Port Talbot?

[Ms Ghani]

I am pleased that the hon. Lady recognises that whole new supply chains will be created and whole new businesses set up, with many more jobs in place too. There will now be a consultation in place. Tata has already put up its business plan for how it will continue to supply steel, but also for the work it will do with supply chains downstream. That work will continue to take place. As far as I am aware, there is no other change in any other sites. Now that the deal is out in public, work will continue at pace. I will continue to meet the chair of the steel APPG and the steel sector to ensure we are doing everything we can to back UK steel and UK manufacturing, and all the businesses in the supply chains too.

Procurement Bill [Lords]

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Coming in as I do at the tail end of the passage of this Bill, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for all her work on the Bill, and to say that I look forward to working constructively with the Minister.

Turning to the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 102B, we can all agree that forced organ harvesting—a practice involving the removal of organs from a living prisoner that results in their death or near death—is abhorrent. The debate on this Government motion is about whether there should be a specific clause in the Bill to make it clear that we do not want to see a single penny of taxpayers’ money go to any company linked to this practice, or whether that is adequately covered by the concept of professional misconduct that can be used against serious unethical behaviour.

We heard powerful speeches in the other place from Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who made compelling arguments for the inclusion in the Bill of the measure against forced organ harvesting and provided evidence of the practice taking place in China. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for all they have done to highlight the issue.

Furthermore, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that serious human rights violations have been committed in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region:

“Allegations of…torture…including forced medical treatment…are credible”.

This is a very current issue, and we would like to see specific mention of it in the Bill.

First, including a specific reference to forced organ harvesting in the Bill will highlight the issue and send a message to potential supply companies to make specific checks that they are not inadvertently in any way associated with the abhorrent business of forced organ harvesting. Secondly, although the Minister has said that forced organ harvesting is already covered by the ground of professional misconduct, which includes serious unethical behaviour, specific mention of it in the Bill will highlight to those undertaking procurement to be particularly vigilant in respect of any potential association of supply companies with this appalling practice. Thirdly, making specific mention of forced organ harvesting helps to send a clear message to China and anywhere else it may occur that the practice will not be tolerated and that there will be economic consequences.

The Minister has objected to having specific mention of forced organ harvesting because it means additional paperwork, and we all want to cut down the amount of paperwork that companies have to deal with. However, I would suggest in this case that a small amount of additional work is well worth it if it sends a strong message of condemnation, strengthens awareness of the issue and hastens the end of this abhorrent practice. The Opposition support the position taken by the other place of including the measure on forced organ harvesting in the Bill, and will therefore vote against the Government’s motion to disagree with the Lords amendment.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Automotive Industry

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

My constituency of Llanelli has made a huge contribution to the automotive industry over many years. Industry grew up there from the very early days of smelting iron ore with local coal, to smelting copper ore imported through the town’s docks, and on to the world-famous tinplate industry, which lives on in the Tata works, which are often referred to as steelworks but which are referred to locally as the tinplate works.

Given its metal tradition, it is no wonder that motor manufacturing and engineering flourished in Llanelli and have been and continue to be very important sources of employment. As well as the larger firms, such as Marelli and Gestamp, there are myriad smaller firms, such as Excel Precision Engineering. They all produce a range of components that are part of the immensely complex supply chain that supplies the many iconic names in the UK motor industry. So many jobs in Llanelli depend on motor manufacturing and, indeed, across Wales there are some 9,000 jobs in the industry.

The complex supply chain makes it vital that the Government have a clear industrial strategy and trade policy, to give the industry the long-term certainty that it needs to invest. We are already seeing the effects of the Government’s dilly-dallying, with production down nearly 10% in 2022 and exports down 14%, which equates to a significant amount when eight out of 10 vehicles are exported. This means empty order books in the supply chain, which is very worrying for workers.

This is about not just the need to produce huge volumes of car batteries but adapting the design of many of the component parts of vehicles, with investment to gear up production lines to produce them. Furthermore, as petrol and diesel cars are phased out, some components will no longer be needed. To survive, the factories that make them will need to transition to manufacturing relevant components for the future, which is a future of electric vehicles.

Just in case the Government still have not heard the message coming loud and clear from the industry for months and months, the challenges are: high energy prices; rules of origin; the need for a long-term industrial strategy and certainty about the future; support for research and development; and the enormous challenge posed by the way other countries incentivise the industry to site new factories and new production lines in their countries.

Let us look at some of the asks. First, I implore the Government, instead of pressing ahead with the imposition of 10% tariffs from January 2024, to work together with the EU to postpone the escalation of the rules of origin requirements until 2027. We also need the Government to support research and development and the bringing of innovation to the market. For example, my constituents have a company that has developed the means to make an EV car battery 15% more efficient. That could make a huge improvement by getting more miles out of a vehicle per charge or facilitating less weighty batteries. That is the sort of enterprise that we need to support.

India is an associate member of the Horizon programme, yet staff in our universities still do not know whether their projects will be able to go ahead. They do not know whether we will continue to be part of the Horizon programme. The Government need to clarify that as soon as possible, so that we do not lose excellent researchers who will go elsewhere if they cannot further their research here in the UK.

Manufacturers have pointed out time and again that the UK has much higher energy prices than our competitor countries. This affects not only energy-intensive industry but all manufacturing. The solution is clear, and Labour has plans to implement it. We on the Labour Benches recognise the real urgency of the need to invest significantly in renewable energy. That is precisely what we would prioritise so that we could slash bills for industry and households while creating jobs—as well as, of course, tackling climate change and ensuring our energy security so that we are never again held to ransom by a foreign despot increasing gas prices. Instead, we have seen the Conservative Government ban the expansion of wind energy in England and take a half-hearted approach to lifting the ban, stalling on solar and, quite frankly, desperately underperforming on the roll-out of renewable energy over the past few years.

We then come to the huge amount of investment that is needed now to transform production from petrol and diesel vehicles to electric vehicles. The US Inflation Reduction Act is a massive game changer. The EU has responded by developing its own incentives, but we have still not had a coherent response from this Government. Time is running out, because companies are making decisions now, and once they ramp up the production of electric vehicles elsewhere, we will see workers in factories here left with nothing but finishing off the remaining orders on existing lines, with no future. If, once those decisions are made, companies do invest elsewhere, there will be no bringing them back: once they have gone, they have gone, adding to the loss of 37% of UK motor manufacturing jobs that this Conservative Government have presided over. That is a full third of the industry lost since 2010. Although I welcome any new investment, it really does need to be put into the context of what this Government have allowed us to lose.

We are all aware of the urgent need to establish battery factories here in the UK. Germany has clocked up 10 factories, while we are struggling on one. What are the Government going to do to ensure that we get the battery factories we need, and in a timely fashion? It is no good being too late when all the industry has gone elsewhere.

In addition, we need adaptation and transformation right across the industry. That is why we in the Labour party have set out our plan to implement a proper industrial strategy and establish an industrial council to provide long-term stability of policy. We have also set out our UK version of the US Inflation Reduction Act: our green prosperity plan. Our national wealth fund will, when needed, provide the finance to invest in the transformation of our automotive industry to produce EVs, which are an important part of our plans to get to net zero. We will boost UK battery capacity with the part-financing of eight additional gigafactories and accelerate the roll-out of charging points to give providers confidence to charge their EVs.

To reiterate, it is not simply the Labour party but the whole industry that is very concerned that we are not seeing a clear industrial strategy or the necessary moves to build battery factories by incentivising firms to continue putting their production here, by bringing down energy prices and by ensuring that we have a thriving motor manufacturing industry for the future.