Climate Change Policy

Debate between Nic Dakin and Claire Perry

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Lady will get the same answer, but she gets points for persistency. I am still waiting for my vegan meal to be delivered to the Houses of Parliament, by the way. The point still stands that it does not matter what we all stand up and say; what matters is that we go out of here and do. I know that she is passionate about this on behalf of her constituents and the country that she is proud to represent, and we are delivering and will continue to deliver. I want to be the Minister who actually commits us to a course of action, not just to a slogan that sounds good on a T-shirt.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The Minister is absolutely right to focus on actions. The Government’s own analysis shows that the introduction of E10 would take the equivalent of 1 million vehicles off the road. That is something that could be done now, so will she, as one of her actions, immediately speak to her colleagues in the Department for Transport and get them to accelerate the move to E10?

[Claire Perry]

Yes.

2015 Steel Summit Commitments

Debate between Nic Dakin and Claire Perry

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Claire Perry]

I am happy to read the primary source. I have seen many of those recommendations, which inform our response to the Helm review.

I was making the point that other countries have taken policy decisions to put the costs that would in this country be borne by industrial customers on to household bills. We have ended up in a situation in which some of our industrial energy bills are higher than average, but our household bills are lower than average. Those policy levers are difficult to change; we all support, for example, the energy price cap Bill that we will bring forward later this week.

However, as the hon. Member for Redcar pointed out, we have spent more than £250 million in compensation specifically for the steel sector and other energy-intensive industries to help to mitigate those policy costs as we transition to a low-carbon future. We successfully pressed for the introduction of trade defence instruments to protect UK steel producers from unfair dumping. We set out visibility on the pipeline going forward, which I know was a big ask from hon. Members in the room.

The Government plan to procure construction contracts that will use 3 million tonnes of UK steel over the next five years, which is enough to build 170 Wembley stadiums. I understand the comment from the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. Believe me, I worked so hard on those numbers, but to build the country’s most expensive ever power station basically to create a couple of dozen jobs was just not economically effective when compared with other opportunities in all our constituencies.

The power of Government procurement should not to be underestimated. Every Government steel contract in England is now required to consider its social and economic impact on local communities and what those decisions mean for the constituencies we are all so proud to represent.

We are grateful for the constructive proposals put forward by the steel council. I asked for guidance on this. The steel council, which I was proud to chair when I was the relevant Minister, met last in June and will meet again before September. It now meets regularly, and that is an opportunity to discuss the current challenges but also for the industry to work together. Historically, members of the industry have not sat around a table and worked together on the outlook and productivity investments; it has had a very competitive mindset. The industry working together and with Government is a very important part of the plan as we go forward.

[Nic Dakin]

The Minister is setting out her stall very well, but as she has said, most of the benefits that we have at the moment are down to global changes and the restructuring that the industry has done itself. The assistance on energy prices was in train before the steel crisis in 2015. Since the crisis, there has been some progress on procurement, but frankly the steel sector deal, which the Government have always been positive about and have said is the way to address the steel crisis issues and the five asks, has not yet delivered. Will the Minister tell us where we are on delivering a sector deal for steel and, indeed, whether that will happen? Is it just a case of officials preventing Ministers from doing their job?

[Claire Perry]

No, no—far from it. The hon. Gentleman invites me to move on to the next part of my response, which is about exactly this issue. One of the first parts of the sector deal is getting the sector to work together to say, “What is it that we collectively need going forward?” We had the “Future Capacities and Capabilities of the UK Steel Industry” report produced at the request of the industry; the Government paid for it with taxpayers’ money. It highlighted onshore opportunities that will be worth up to £4 billion a year by 2030. This is about customer demand and substituting for imports specialty steels, higher-quality steels or steels that can support the investments in the offshore wind industry—things that are now being imported. That opportunity exists for the UK plants and it is forming part of the sector deal.

As I have urged hon. Members to recognise before, we should not use the steel sector deal as a measure of how much the Government love the sector. The idea is not to have Government write it and say, “This is what you need to do.” It is for the industry to come together and set out what it needs and wants from Government. We have seen the publication of sector deals that directly benefit the industry that we are talking about. The automotive sector deal was an early one out of the traps. The automotive industry has already increased its use of UK-made content. That went up from 36% previously to 44% two years ago, and the aim is to reach 50% or more by 2022, as a direct result of the sector deal. The construction sector is a vital market for many of the steel products in this country, and we published the construction sector deal last Thursday. It aims to build homes and offices quicker than in the past and it also has commitments in relation to domestic content.

We are absolutely committed to securing a steel sector deal that works for Government, industry and employees. It would be unfair to blame any delay on my hard-working officials. This is about getting the right deal—one that is not just a simple request for money but is saying, “What are we collectively going to do to increase productivity and competiveness, so we can invest again in these steel plants and create jobs in these important areas?”

[Claire Perry]

That is an excellent point. The hon. Lady will know that I am keen for us to have an energy policy that delivers secure, affordable, low-carbon and innovative energy. I believe that onshore shale gas can play a part in that, and we are soberly going through the process of testing the wells. She raises an important point about ensuring that that work is done using UK steel content. I will take that away for my conversations with the companies, but I did hold a very effective shale industry roundtable, at which I was struck by the number of small companies that are making the pipes and specialty products that rely on UK steel and the opportunities for them, so the hon. Lady makes an excellent point.

I again reassure colleagues here today that work is going on on the sector deal, but we have to encourage the companies that we are working with and that provide so many jobs in the constituencies represented here to think about what they will do. There are positive signs. We are seeing steel companies investing in very good research and development. Companies are bidding for money from our industrial strategy challenge fund—the current wave—for more innovative products, and that is incredibly important going forward.

[Nick Dakin]

UK Steel was disappointed with the Government’s response to the sector deal proposals so far—not because there are not weaknesses in what it has put forward that it is aware of, but because the things that were highlighted were not, bluntly, weaknesses. There needs to be a proper dialogue going on that delivers an outcome. How long does the Minister think it will be before we have a sector deal for steel?

[Claire Perry]

I will not speak for the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, who chairs the steel council and is closely involved in the conversations, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to think about the outcome, not the timing. We recognise the importance of the industry. We are setting out plans to ensure that its products can be sold into other UK sectors as part of those deals. I am confident that we will get there, but the steel sector deal has to be a deal that works for the long-term future and is not a quick fix. I think that all of us would say that putting another sticking plaster over the problems that we saw in 2015 would not be the way to secure the jobs of the future. We know that there is a huge opportunity from UK—domestic —clients wanting to buy these products, and we have to help the industry to find a way to get there.

Sector Deal for Steel

Debate between Nic Dakin and Claire Perry

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (Claire Perry)]

As always, Sir Henry, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I congratulate the hon. Members who are present today on securing an absolutely crucial and timely debate. I also echo the good wishes that have been expressed about the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), who is an amazing champion for activity in this sector, and we all wish her extremely well.

Listening to the speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), I was reminded of the many debates that I had with her late husband, who, like her, was a doughty champion of the activities of the constituency. I am sure that her constituents are very proud of her and I like to think that her son will get a council seat soon, because it is clear that he has also done an amazing job in representing the communities in that area. Evidently, they are a great political family.

I welcome the comments that have been made today. Everyone here is standing up for a foundation industry, a vital industry and an industry about which we should be incredibly proud, not only for developing the technologies that underpin it but for continuing what has been a highly productive trajectory. Given that we are discussing such an important industry, I hope we might get beyond some of the party polemics and the Nye Bevan rhetoric that we have heard today. I will just point out a couple of facts and then I hope that we can park the politics of this debate.

In 1998, 68,000 people were employed in this vital industry. During the next 16 years, largely under a Labour Government, that number dropped to around 30,000. Since then, we have seen an increase in employment, despite going through some very tough economic times—[Interruption.] These are the facts, I am afraid.

I will also point out that it was a Conservative Prime Minister who called the first steel summit, who set up the steel council, who has paid for the report on the “Future Capacities and Capabilities of the UK Steel Industry” with taxpayers’ money, because we think it is a vital investment, and who has Ministers who are absolutely committed to working with this industry, domestically and internationally. I hope that we can get beyond the party politics, for the sake of the people depending on this industry and for the sake of the thousands of incredibly highly productive jobs in the industry. I think it is time to get to a different place, where we focus on the long-term potential. So can we have a little less politicking and a little more focus on the future of the industry, please?

On my visit this summer to the constituency of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), as I went round the steel plants and talked to the workforce, who have been there for generations, I was struck by the level of skill and pride of the workforce, as well as the impact that those plants have on the constituency and the innovation that they bring. I remember talking to a shift manager in the electric arc furnace nearby, who said, “My dad would never have thought I could do this job, but he’d be really proud of me today”, as he tapped out molten steel.

However, I was also shocked to see the conditions that we still expect people to work in. This is a very tough industry, and I know that people in the steel plants are incredibly proud of what they have done. I join all Members in paying tribute to the steel workforce, who have shown amazing foresight over the last few years. We are very keen to continue to engage with the unions, as we do with the managers and the investors, to drive this sector forward.

Let me just reiterate very quickly what the Government have done, because it is clear that in such a vital strategic industry Government involvement, both in the sector itself and in the other aspects of the demand and supply chain, is very important. Procurement has come up many times today. We are working very hard to ensure that, where possible, British steel is the steel of choice in public procurement. We have new procurement guidelines; we have published the steel pipeline, which looks out over the next five years; and we are setting out how we want to use more than 3 million tonnes of steel on infrastructure projects such as High Speed 2, Hinkley and on the upgrade of the motorway network. That is a pipeline that has been widely welcomed by the sector.

[Nic Dakin]

I thank the Minister for the tone that she is adopting, but does she not agree that it is important that the Government monitor performance on procurement? That was the intention when the guidelines came in, in 2016, but since then it appears to have slipped.

[Claire Perry]

I will happily take away the hon. Gentleman’s point. Although we do not want to mandate supply, because we want the sectors to buy the best quality at the best price, we must ensure that, where we can, we pull forward and give certainty to the steel industry. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough said, the work we do with other vital sectors, such as auto and construction, has a really important knock-on effect on supply for the steel sector. In the auto sector deal—I will talk about sector deals in more detail—we have set an ambition and the industry has committed to increase the share of UK content in the automotive supply chain to up to 50% by 2022—it has already gone up from 36% a few years ago to 41% now. That has to be important, given the reliance of the sector on our superb British steel industry. Also, through the construction sector deal, we see big improvements in productivity and in demand for British steel.

The point has also rightly been made about trade. We all know what global trading conditions are like. The Prime Minister has called on the G20 forum on steel excess capacity to agree concrete policy principles, and my Secretary of State was in Berlin just a few days ago pushing for agreement on them. The director of UK Steel said:

“The outcome of today’s meeting is enormously welcome, representing a significant step towards delivering concrete action”.

He also felt obliged to congratulate my Secretary of State on his personal efforts, which show that we are committed to solving the underlying challenges the industry faces. It is only a first step, and we must continue to engage, but it is an extremely important one.

On the post-Brexit trade arrangement, we are extremely focused on what that test looks like in a post-Brexit world and on how we can have a suitable trade protection system that enables us to respond based on the geographic impact of certain trading regimes in the UK. That is something on which we are working closely.

Energy prices have, of course, come up. I will say a little more about that, but I want to thank those hon. Members who have acknowledged that we have managed to head off any negative impacts of the so-called Brexit amendment. I laid the legislation before the House last week and I look forward to introducing it. We want there to be absolutely no negative impact. We have reimbursed the steel sector more than £200 million for its energy costs, and from 1 April 2018 we will introduce exemptions rather than compensation mechanisms, so that companies can have their bill reduced by up to 85% of their relevant costs rather than have to muck about submitting a claim. That is very important for cash flow.

The capacity and capabilities report, which the Government asked for and have paid for, with our taxpayers’ money, has really helped the sector, for the first time, to come together to understand what its challenges are. I chair the steel council, and a conversation we always have is about how we have never sat down as a sector and talked about our collective challenges. We have always competed; it has been a zero-sum game. But it is not a zero-sum game. If we want industries and Government to invest in research and development and think about how they might support other vital industries, collective activity is needed. The report has been warmly welcomed by, among others, Roy Rickhuss, who said:

“This will help us all better understand the opportunities and challenges facing the UK steel industries”.

The report points out the skill shortage. The average age of a steel worker is 45, and most of them are gentlemen. The sector has not invested in the skills of the future. Despite the employment losses, it is highly productive; we have asked workers to do more on a daily basis. The sector has invested, but we know we have to get the skills and the investment up.

There are challenges for the sector. The study sets out a welcome point, which is that there is a market opportunity of up to £4 billion by 2030 for our UK steel companies if they and the Government can align themselves for it. To capture that opportunity, the sector requires the kind of transformative investment that some of the companies have made in other parts of their European portfolio. On customer demand, the capability and capacities study shows that only 18% of that opportunity will be available if there is no investment, particularly investment in higher-grade and more speciality products, upgrades and additional facilities, and increases in research and investment. In fact, the industry itself acknowledges that it has not focused on customers. Many steel consumers in the UK continue to import because different product sources exist and sometimes, frankly, customer service is better. That is a problem that the Government and the sector must work on together.

Some countries such as Germany choose to up consumers’ energy bills and subsidise those of heavy industry. In this country, we have tried to hold down energy costs across the board, as we invest in the transition to cleaner energy, so we have some of the lowest consumer energy bills in Europe. However, as hon. Members have pointed out, although our gas bills are competitive for industry our electricity bills are among the highest in Europe. We have clearly set out the ambition to have the lowest electricity costs in Europe. We commissioned the review by Dieter Helm, which pulled no punches, the recommendations of which we are considering carefully. It is a welcome backdrop that renewables are getting to the point of subsidy-free generation, so the long-term investments we have made in that transition are starting to bear fruit. I am, however, very aware of the asks on energy costs and will continue to review them.

I want to turn finally to the sector deal. I reassure Members that the first draft of the industrial strategy had four sector deals in it, out of the 52 or so that had been submitted. That does not mean that they were the superior, priority or target ones. They were the deals that were closest to the line because they represented a joint industry and Government focus on driving up productivity in the industries in which we know we have to be successful to compete in the future. The steel sector deal, on which we have worked very closely with the sector, is one of the other deals we are actively engaging with and working on.

[Nic Dakin]

rose—

[Claire Perry]

I will just try to get through this point and then I will be happy to take an intervention.

I have every intention and every expectation of bringing forward an attractive sector deal. We have held many meetings, and when the deal is in a good enough place and we have commitments on both sides to drive the transformation, we will do that. The deals are not, “Give us some money”, they are, “What can we do together, Government and industry, unions, apprenticeships, education institutions and our brilliant academic institutions, to create the industry of the future, to capture those opportunities and drive them forward?”

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nic Dakin and Claire Perry

Thursday 5th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

It’s the way the hon. Lady tells them. It is not 850 miles of electrification, but 889 miles—as opposed to the 10 miles delivered in the previous 13 years of supposedly record economic growth. I know that the hon. Lady is a frequent traveller from Nottingham station, which has benefited, of course, from £100 million-worth of investment under this Government. We will take no lessons from her.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to develop the north-south road network in Lincolnshire.

Rail Services (Northern Lincolnshire)

Debate between Nic Dakin and Claire Perry

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) for initiating this debate. He is a northern powerhouse in his own right, and has been an ardent campaigner on this issue, as have colleagues from across the House who represent constituencies in that area. He has impressed on my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond)—who I believe did a sterling job in this role—and on the Department, the importance that his constituents place on rail services in northern Lincolnshire. I am happy to say that the Government recognise the importance of rail services in the north of England, and also in my fine constituency which, as my hon. Friend knows, I am proud to represent.

Rail services are vital nationally. As hon. Members will be aware, since privatisation the number of passengers on our rail network has doubled, with record numbers of people choosing to travel by train. Indeed, the rail network has not been this busy since the 1920s. This is particularly obvious in the north of England, where the Northern and TransPennine Express franchises have far exceeded the original expectations of passenger growth. We are now dealing with the challenges of success, with the increase in passenger numbers meaning that we need to provide capacity where it is most needed. That is a key concern.

Capacity constraints in the whole region have driven the Government to invest a very welcome £1 billion in electrification projects and the northern hub, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes mentioned. This programme will see improved services, increased capacity and reduced overcrowding across the north of England over the next five years, allowing for faster trains between the major northern cities and also benefiting freight, which he name-checked as being incredibly important. This investment will bring enormous benefits to the area and will complement the £104 million investment specifically for the Humber region that was announced as part of the local growth deal. In researching this today, I was particularly delighted to see that that money includes funding for a number of transport schemes, including funding for the Humber local enterprise partnership to further develop proposals for electrification between Hull and Selby.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) alluded to the rolling stock transfer. My hon. Friend and hon. Members across the House will be pleased to hear that the Department has been working very closely with the train operating companies and the train leasing companies on the move of nine class 170 trains from TransPennine Express to Chiltern railways that is scheduled for April 2015. I am confident that we have developed a solution that will ensure that current capacity is maintained and that suitable and appropriate rolling stock will be provided for passengers in north Lincolnshire. I hope to make an announcement to that effect in due course.

As we heard, the lines in this area provide an incredibly important rail freight link, especially to and from the major port of Immingham. As my hon. Friend said, he estimates that 25% of all rail freight starts or ends his journey in his constituency. Recognising this, the Government have recently invested £45 million in the new Doncaster North chord. That will remove a significant bottleneck between the port and the power stations in the region, providing capacity and performance improvements for passenger and freight services and relieving pressure on the all-important east coast main line.

As we know, the Government have big ambitions for rail travel in the north. The prospectuses for the TransPennine Express and Northern franchises set out the transformation that we want to see. We are encouraging ambitious bids, and we want partners for the new franchises that have vision and the capability to deliver on that vision. They will need long-term plans for franchises that truly place passengers at the heart of their operation.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

It would be a pleasure.

[Nic Dakin]

I fully associate myself with the comments by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who set out the position very well. I congratulate him on securing the debate. The Minister will have noted the consternation of businesses and domestic users across northern Lincolnshire regarding this issue. I very much congratulate her on taking on this role, which is a well-deserved promotion. She will have been listening to the debate carefully and will want to reflect on it. I ask her, after that reflection, to meet the four MPs from northern Lincolnshire to consider the matter further so that we can properly represent the concerns that have been very fully expressed tonight.

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman, who I would like to call my hon. Friend given the nights we have spent counting votes together, raises the important issue of the representation of business and passengers. It would be a pleasure to meet the hon. Members representing this important area to discuss this further.

We need to ask not just Members here but all users of rail services in the region what they need and what matters to them. The consultation document launched last month does just that by inviting MPs, councils and all rail users—indeed, all interested parties—to tell us what matters to them. The questions raised in the consultation cover a large number of areas and set out some of the options we are considering for services on the Northern and TransPennine Express franchises. It is important to remember, however, that the consultation is a genuine one. We are a Government who believe in listening. No decisions have been made and there have been no backroom dealings, so the document is what it says on the tin—a consultation document. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in a recent interview in that estimable publication, the Grimsby Telegraph, there is nothing sinister at all about the proposals. It is important that we are able to ask all sorts of questions and listen to the answers that people provide. As he said:

“Quite often we’re accused of not asking and just acting. Now we’re asking, we’re getting into trouble for that as well.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby asked about Rail North, which is an important partner both in the consultation process and in the long-term future of the operation of the franchises. I commend the local councils of the Members in the Chamber. The councils have been assiduous in campaigning for the rail links and will work hard throughout the consultation process. However, I emphasise that there is nothing to stop those councils, or indeed anybody, from putting their own consultation directly to the Department.

I appreciate that some of the questions we have asked, particularly those in relation to service changes from Cleethorpes to Manchester airport, have raised concerns and strong feelings from, I imagine, many of the 400,000 people who use Cleethorpes station every year, and who are represented well in the Chamber, but I believe it is a good thing to engender such reactions, because it shows the importance that people place on their rail services and that we are asking the right questions.

As we have said throughout the consultation document, we place a great deal of importance on the evidence and value the submissions. I encourage all hon. Members and their constituents, and anyone else with a strong view, to make it known before the consultation closes on 18 August.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes asked specifically about passenger loading figures and the drop-off ratio between stations. I am happy to consider releasing such information to him. Perhaps he would be kind enough to drop me a note on specifically what he would like, and we will get to work on it.

It is clear from this evening’s debate that there is a great strength of feeling about rail services throughout the north of England and the country. I should take this opportunity to recognise again my hon. Friend’s assiduous campaign on behalf his constituents. I am sure I will discuss the subject with him on many other occasions and that I will receive many more submissions from him. I hope that strength of feeling translates into a large number of responses, which will allow the Government to deliver the improvements people want.

Question put and agreed to.