Dover and Portsmouth: Protests

Debate between Sarah Jones and Judith Cummins

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

With permission, I will make a statement on public order following the protest activity seen on the south coast this weekend. I know many in this House, and outside, will have been concerned by the events of the past two days, and I welcome the opportunity to set out what happened, as well as to update Members on the action that the Government are taking to address the issues at the heart of the protests.

It is right to begin with the facts. At around 7.30 on Saturday morning, around 150 individuals descended on the port of Dover, many of them wearing face coverings. Kent police deployed rapidly to the scene of what the force has described as a “no-notice” protest. No arrests were made and the crowd eventually dispersed some hours later, at which point full access to the port was restored. Nevertheless, the impact was felt by local residents and workers, for whom the scenes will have been unnerving, as well as by ferry passengers and motorists who faced delays as a result.

Let me turn to the second incident in Portsmouth. In the early afternoon on Sunday, a boat carrying approximately 120 people reached British waters near the Isle of Wight, which is considerably further west than the majority of small boat crossings. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution, under the direction of HM Coastguard UK, met the boat and directed it towards Eastney marina in the wider Portsmouth area. At around 8 pm, a group of more than 200 protesters arrived at the harbour, intending to block three coaches that were due to take the arrivals for processing. Many of those protesters were dressed in all black and wearing face masks. Hampshire and Isle of Wight constabulary, with the support of other neighbouring forces, used a dispersal notice to ensure public safety. Officers were forced to use batons and PAVA spray to maintain order in the face of some aggression. They worked through the evening and into the early hours of the morning, and at around 4 am, protesters began to disperse and the coaches eventually set off. Again, no arrests were made on the night, but investigations are ongoing, and where criminality is identified those responsible should expect to face the consequences.

These types of incidents require careful handling by the police, and I place on record my thanks to all those who were part of the operational responses in Dover and Portsmouth. I am especially grateful to those on the front line whose efforts were essential to bringing the demonstrations to a conclusion. I have today spoken to key policing partners and, as the House would expect in the wake of such incidents, work is ongoing to establish any lessons and ensure that relevant intelligence is shared at pace across our law enforcement system.

Peaceful protest is a fundamental part of our democracy and must be defended, but so too is the right of other citizens to go about their lives without undue interference. There can be no excuse for threatening behaviour or serious disruption. Let me therefore make clear to the House and the country that disorder of any kind will never be tolerated, and those who cross the line from peaceful protest into illegality will face the full force of the law. This Government condemn the intimidating and thuggish behaviour shown by some of the protesters this weekend. We are working closely with the police in Kent and Hampshire, alongside the National Police Co-ordination Centre, all of whom have our full backing in taking any necessary step to uphold public safety and maintain the peace.

None of that is in any way to minimise the very valid concerns of law-abiding people when they see vile criminal gangs exploiting our nation’s generosity, and people making illegal and unnecessary journeys to reach this country. Let us never forget that the frustration we see in our communities today is a product of chaos and crisis in the years that preceded the general election of 2024. Since then, this Government have taken action to fix the broken system we inherited and bear down on the people smugglers. We have doubled the number of National Crime Agency officers tasked with dismantling organised immigration crime, system-wide arrests are up 70%, more than 1,100 boats and engines have been seized, and in partnership with French law enforcement we have prevented over 48,000 attempted crossings. We are now taking that partnership further with a landmark new deal, which was signed in April, securing a 40% increase in French boots on the ground and taking the total to more than 1,000, as well as enhanced surveillance technology and new specialist units.

At the same time, we are removing the incentives that draw people here illegally in the first place. Since the election, we have made over 6,000 small boat returns—a 64% increase on the last two years of the previous Government—and we have removed more than 80,000 illegal migrants and foreign criminals from these shores. As a result of the action this Government have taken, this summer saw the lowest number of small boat arrivals since 2020. So far this year, the number of crossings is down by over 43% on last year.

Progress is being made, but we are not complacent. We must and will be unrelenting, not least in response to any shift in tactics by the gangs. The use of larger boats, with over a hundred people crammed on board, is a clear cause for concern, and we remain alert to the potential for crossings on less frequently targeted stretches of water off our coastline. The gangs are never going to go quietly. They are responding to the impact our work is having, and we will adapt in turn, both in terms of our enforcement, in partnership with France, and our response here.

Our priority will always be the safety of the British people. As such, we will continue bearing down on small boat crossings and the criminal gangs behind them, as we deliver the strong, secure borders the people of this country expect and deserve. At the same time, we will keep working closely with police forces to maintain order on our streets. While we must protect our ancient right to free speech, what we will never tolerate is the disruption of people’s daily lives or the intimidation of our communities. I commend the statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I was pleased to be able to talk to him earlier today, and we were in touch over the weekend as well, as the House would expect. As the Member of Parliament for that area, it is absolutely right and proper that my hon. Friend should lead the way in asking for the right lessons to be learned from what happened.

I spoke to Deputy Chief Constable Peter Ayling and Assistant Chief Constable Nicola Faulconbridge today, and they took me through the order of what happened and how it happened. It was a no-notice protest—with a lot of a protests in this country, the police are told in advance, and can then think about whether they want to impose conditions and what those conditions should be. This was a no-notice protest, in the sense that the police were not told about it. Clearly it was planned, and clearly it was people from outside the area coming in and causing chaos.

Of course, we need to learn whatever lessons we need to learn when it comes to intelligence. Since the 2024 riots, we have beefed up the structures around the national co-ordination of protests and intelligence sharing, giving us a stronger capability to look across the internet and see what we can find out there. There is more co-ordination, and the offer of mutual aid worked very well this weekend, as it always does. However, I will of course listen to any intelligence that my hon. Friend has, and we will make sure we learn the lessons.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

How is that far-right thugs in balaclavas were able to close Britain’s busiest port without the police receiving any prior intelligence? How is it that an apparently separate group with some commonalities was then able to blockade another site the next evening? Will the Minister tell the House whether she will review why the police were caught off guard? More shockingly still—or perhaps just as shockingly—no arrests have been reported. People have drawn comparisons this weekend with the hundreds of sign-holding protesters who have been arrested since July 2025 on other protests. Can the Minister understand why people are confused by the difference in approach? Can she also answer questions from Portsmouth Liberal Democrat council leader Steve Pitt about the lack of local consultation on identifying appropriate landing sites? That is a key question that needs answering, because it clearly caused problems in Portsmouth.

Britain’s transport infrastructure cannot be left vulnerable to far-right mobs. It is a disgrace that this weekend, Reform MPs took to social media to fan the flames alongside people like Musk and Robinson. It is a disgrace that Members of this House support such vigilante action. It was the decision to leave the European Union, championed by those Reform Members and their allies in the Conservative party, that created the small boats crisis in the first place. We will only get a safe and controlled asylum system in line with British values if we join the EU migration and asylum pacts. That will also save taxpayers’ money. The Government are paying at least £500 million for a three-year agreement with France. More money will follow when the agreement is struck with Belgium. The UK’s contribution to join that pact, which would bring order and safety to the asylum system, would be significantly less than what we are currently pledging to pay in those agreements. Joining the pact must be top of the agenda when the Prime Minister meets EU leaders later this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing, and I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), who is in his place today, but cannot speak as he is a Minister. I have spoken to him about the conversations he has been having with local businesses, local individuals and the local police. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) is absolutely right that there were people who were concerned about what they are seeing, but they are very different from the kind of racist, far-right thugs that we also saw over the weekend. It is important that we distinguish between the two.

My hon. Friend asked what more we are doing, and I have listed the improvements we are making in terms of the National Crime Agency, the intelligence we are gathering, and our ability to go after the criminal gangs. We also need to do more to reduce the incentives for people to come into the country. The asylum grant rate, which is a statistic that I have not mentioned yet, has fallen from 77% in 2022 to 38% this year. That is another marker of progress, and we are reforming the asylum system more widely. Last November, the then Home Secretary set out the reforms that we are working through. We have had a consultation on the standard qualifying period for most migrants. All these things are all part of trying to create a fair system that does not incentivise people to come here from France.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

If the centre does not take action, nasty extremes will take over. The fact is that we are in acute danger. These people can now launch from anywhere on the north French coast and are escorted to our shores. Frankly, we are being invaded, and the public are completely fed up. There is only one solution, and that was put to the Minister by the shadow Home Secretary. There is no deterrent. They know they will not be deported. We have to get out of these outdated conventions, detain immediately and deport immediately. Will the Government take action?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I appreciate that the hon. Lady will have been concerned over the weekend, as a local member of Parliament. I am always there, if she wants to contact me, and if she is struggling to get through to anyone, I am happy to give her my number and to have another chat about this. Obviously, this was a moving picture, and it is not always possible for the police dealing with an incident to respond in a way that one might want.

The hon. Lady asked whether attempts to land further down the coast were an emerging problem. We are aware that, partly because we are making it harder for people to launch boats from “traditional” places, they are starting to launch them further west along the French coast. There is no evidence to suggest that they particularly want to land anywhere that would not enable them to get to Manston, which is where they would normally go, but we will of course totally keep all this under review.

The force was given the mutual aid that it asked for. There were several forces around, and in the end, the people causing the problem were dispersed. It is not uncommon for forces to offer mutual aid. For instance, when problems arose in Cleveland in recent weeks, 600 officers went in, through mutual aid. If I may make a slightly wider point, I think that makes the case for reform—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Not that Reform; reform of policing. If there was a national police service, which we are introducing, agencies would be working together much more closely, because they would be part of the same organisation. Rather than relying on mutual aid from other forces, everyone would be joined up and sharing intelligence, which I think would be a better system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Given that we have such a tight schedule tonight, could the Minister shorten her answers a bit?

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Sarah Jones and Judith Cummins

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

I beg to move,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 2D and 2E but proposes in lieu of those amendments Amendment (a) to its Amendment 2B and Amendment (b) to its Amendment 2C.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following Government motions:

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 11 but proposes Amendments (a) to (d) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.

That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 265D to 265H.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 342, but does not insist on its Amendment 342A in lieu and proposes Amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment 342.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 359 and 439 but proposes Amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendments 359 and 439.

[Sarah Jones]

I hope we are on the home straight with this enormous piece of legislation. I start by welcoming the fact that the House of Lords has heeded many of the arguments and votes in this House last week—of the 19 issues that I went through in my speech last Tuesday, we are now down to just four. As for those four, we have again listened carefully to the points raised in the Lords and tabled further amendments in lieu.

Let me turn first to amendments 2D and 2E on fining for profit, tabled by Liberal Democrat Front Benchers. I again recognise the concerns expressed about enforcement agencies potentially issuing fixed penalty notices for antisocial behaviour offences where there may be a financial incentive to do so. We have listened to those concerns, and hon. Members will recall that last week we agreed amendments making clear that the statutory guidance issued under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 may, among other things, address the issue of the proportionate issuing of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons for breaches of community protection notices and public space protection orders. The Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson in the other place said that discretion to issue such guidance was not good enough, and that there should be a duty to do so. The amendment in lieu now provides for just such a duty. I hope this will persuade hon. Members that the Government are committed to addressing this issue.

Turning to the question of fly-tipping, the Government again recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. Our recent waste crime action plan has set out our zero-tolerance approach to prevent waste crime, pursue the criminals responsible and accelerate the clean-up effort. On the specific issue of vehicle seizure powers, I want to be clear that local authorities already have powers to seize vehicles if they have reason to believe the vehicle is being used, or is about to be used, to commit a fly-tipping offence. However, to further support local authorities, we have tabled an amendment in lieu that makes clear what the statutory guidance on fly-tipping should cover. For example, it must include advice on collecting strong evidence against the offender that can help to secure a successful conviction and advice on what action can be taken, including the seizure of vehicles.

Local authorities are the lead agency for tackling fly-tipping, and it is right that they lead on enforcement, so the power to seize and dispose of vehicles used in fly-tipping properly rests with them. The police already have general powers of seizure under section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, where they have reasonable grounds to believe that the item is evidence in relation to an offence. That power can be used to seize vehicles involved in fly-tipping. Where the police seize a vehicle, they would be expected to liaise with the local authority, which would then take action to dispose of that vehicle. As such, Lords amendment 11 seeks to close a gap in the law that, in practice, just does not exist.

I turn next to youth diversion orders. We were disappointed by the Lords’ decision last week to reject the Government’s amendment in lieu, which was tabled in response to Baroness Doocey’s amendment 342. Baroness Doocey raised concerns regarding the lack of a requirement for police to consult organisations beyond criminal justice services, flagging that this missed an opportunity to legislate for consultation with other agencies such as health, education and social services.

We respectfully disagree with Baroness Doocey that her amendment would directly respond to the recommendations made by Sir Adrian Fulford in his recent report on the horrific Southport attack. Multi-agency engagement will be critical to the success of these orders, which is why the Bill already includes a duty on the police to consult youth justice services. In England and Wales, this will be through local youth offending teams, which are multi-agency in nature—they include representatives from health, education, social services and probation, as is underpinned in statute by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. They may also extend beyond those mandated agencies to include child and adolescent mental health services, education inclusion teams, voluntary and community organisations, and local early help services. We are therefore confident that youth diversion order applications will be made following consultation with a wide variety of agencies, and will benefit from the expertise of those agencies in working with young people.

Baroness Doocey also raised concerns regarding the police’s consideration of alternative interventions. The statutory guidance, which will be developed by the Home Office and laid before Parliament for scrutiny ahead of publication, will include guidance on alternative interventions that police may wish to consider instead of, or alongside, a youth diversion order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

As the hon. Gentleman said, there is a fine line to tread throughout public order legislation. We come back to these issues time and again, and it is right that we do so. As times change, the nature of protests changes and the nature of the risks changes. We have new debates about public order. This Home Secretary felt strongly that it was time for a more fundamental look at our public order legislation. That is what we are going through with the review of our public order legislation and our hate crime legislation that Lord Macdonald is undertaking. He will look at whether it is in the right place and doing the right things. I have every confidence in the legislation we are passing today, but the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a review to follow. It perhaps will have more to say, and we will bring it back to this place.

Last Tuesday, this House voted on all four issues that we are debating today and emphatically rejected the Lords amendments. We should again send these amendments back to their lordships with a clear message that they have done their duty but the elected House is clear and unequivocal in its own mind, and the time has come to let this Bill pass. The time for debate has ended. It is now time that this Bill goes to His Majesty for Royal Assent, so that we can get on with implementing the provisions and making our streets, communities and country safer.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

British Steel

Debate between Sarah Jones and Judith Cummins

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the steps the Government have taken since the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 came into force.

The Government took the decision to recall Parliament on 12 April so that we could take swift, significant action on British Steel. As hon. Members will be aware, that was the first time Parliament had sat on a Saturday in over 40 years. Our attendance in this place was testament to the urgency and importance of the issue at hand, which was the need to prevent the immediate closure of the blast furnaces at Scunthorpe. The action we took on 12 April and the measures we have taken since matter greatly for this country, and are of enormous importance to thousands of steelworkers and their families. I am very pleased to inform the House that this afternoon, British Steel has cancelled the redundancy consultations started by Jingye. I know that many British Steel employees will breathe a sigh of relief at that news.

It is regrettable that when this Government took office, we inherited a steel sector in crisis, and an iconic British company facing an existential threat. Since day one, we have worked tirelessly with British Steel and the trade unions to find a resolution, because blast furnace closures at Scunthorpe is an outcome that this Government were simply not willing to allow. I want to stress that this kind of state intervention is not something that we intend to replicate in other situations, or for other industries. We recognised that unprecedented action was warranted in a truly unprecedented situation.

As hon. Members will know, the legislation we introduced, which was passed that weekend, gave us the power to direct British Steel’s board and workforce, ensure they got paid, and order the raw materials to keep the blast furnaces running. It also permits the Government to do those things themselves, if the circumstances demand it. We have wasted no time in enacting those powers and taking the urgent action required to keep the blast furnaces lit at Scunthorpe. We have secured the raw materials needed to keep the blast furnaces operating, and we continue to work at pace to secure a steady pipeline of materials. Officials were on site to help British Steel within hours of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 becoming law, and we are already seeing the real-world impact of our decisive intervention.

I am delighted to say that British Steel has also confirmed today that it can keep operating both of the UK’s last remaining blast furnaces. By contrast, Jingye’s plan was to shut one of them down earlier this month. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to hear that the company’s workforce, their families, suppliers and communities have expressed deep gratitude for the action we have taken, which has preserved steelmaking at Scunthorpe and safeguarded thousands of skilled steel jobs.

Now that the immediate emergency has passed, it is right that hon. Members also ask questions about what is next. We have been clear that in order to secure the long-term future of British Steel, which has not been properly invested in for years, we will need a modernisation programme, ideally with a private sector partner. Furthermore, we will need to look beyond any individual company, and ensure a secure and thriving future for the whole steel sector. That is why we are continuing our work to publish the steel strategy this spring.

All options are on the table as we begin to address the company’s long-term sustainable future. My officials met Jingye on 16 April. It was a respectful conversation, and that dialogue will continue as we find a way forward in the national interest that safeguards steelmaking and protects jobs. With that in mind, I also want to say thank you—thank you to those who sent us messages to say we did the right thing to save British Steel, thank you to everyone who offered practical support and, most importantly, thank you to the workers and managers at British Steel who have heard our call to produce the steel that we need to deliver our plan for change, to keep the Scunthorpe site and everyone working at it safe, and to do so in a way that reduces the scale of financial losses. They have shown remarkable resilience and dedication at a supremely difficult time, and have served the plant, their community and the nation. They have promised us that there are better days ahead for British Steel, and we agree. We are giving them the chance they need to write the next chapter of British Steel’s history.

We have assured this House time and again that steel has a bright future under this Government, and I restate that today. Steel is fundamental to Britain’s industrial strength and to our identity as a global power, and we will never hesitate to protect it. We have committed to update both Houses as policy develops and a longer-term strategy is formulated. I reaffirm that written updates will be forthcoming regularly. So let there be no doubt: this week is not the end. It is not the end of the work, and it is not the end of the negotiations, but thanks to the actions we have taken, it is also not the end of British Steel. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

It is getting harder and harder to understand quite what the Opposition’s policy is on steel. It is all over the place. On the one hand, they ask us questions about costs. They say they had negotiated a modernisation plan with British Steel, but they will not tell us how much money they were willing to throw at that plan. Their proposal, apparently, was to build on two sites. If Jingye was asking us for £1.2 billion to build on one site, how much taxpayers’ money were the Government putting on the table to fund two? We need answers to those questions.

On nationalisation, last week the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, who was, as we know, Financial Secretary to the Treasury when Liz Truss crashed the economy, said that he backed full nationalisation of British Steel. On the other hand, this morning the Leader of the Opposition said on Radio 4 that nationalisation should be the “last resort.” It seems a bit muddled. Finally, the hon. Member asked questions about the cost of energy pricing, forgetting of course that industrial energy prices doubled under the Tories. UK Steel, the trade body for the steel industry, is clear and has said that it is

“the UK’s reliance on natural gas power generation”

that leaves us with higher prices than our international allies. It is not too much clean energy, but too little.

The hon. Member asked a reasonable question about the costs. I hope he will understand that matters at the moment are sensitive and commercially confidential, and I hope he will be assured that we will publish accounts in due course. We are securing materials and reviewing things such as health and safety, and other critical roles. Regular meetings are happening between the Departments and British Steel, as he would expect, and of course we will publish those details in due course. He asked about the coalmine. British Steel has told us directly that it could not use that coal because of the sulphur content. We also need coke ovens to turn coal into coke, and the coke ovens at British Steel were closed on his watch several years ago. The reality is that the Tories failed the British Steel sector, and this Labour Government are securing it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

I want to thank the Government for saving British Steel. Our Committee has been clear that it is essential for us to retain the ability to make primary steel in this country, and the steps that were taken a couple of Saturdays ago have helped derisk exactly that. The Government deserve credit for that. However, the Committee has written to the Government to say that a steel strategy needs to come forward as quickly as possible. It must be a clear, long-term vision for the industry, and there must be safeguards against the potential of a floodtide of steel from China. We need to use public procurement much more aggressively to support our local industry, energy costs need to come down, and we need a plan to keep scrap onshore. Will the Minister tell us when she plans to bring forward that steel strategy? Ultimately, what is good for the steel industry is good for Scunthorpe.

[Sarah Jones]

My right hon. Friend is of course right: the steel strategy is all the more important now than when we devised it in opposition and committed £2.5 billion for the steel strategy fund in our manifesto. We are looking at how we use that financial support, and, as he knows, at how we might do primary production. We are investigating future market opportunities and how we can increase demand here in the UK. He speaks of procurement, which of course is incredibly important. I have been talking to the procurement Minister and working on that, along with the Steel Council. We need to consider the availability of suitable sites for future investments.

Scrap is important, as my right hon. Friend says—how can we improve UK capability? Trade and overcapacity is a huge issue, and one that we share with our American colleagues, which is why we do not believe that the tariffs are necessary—we have the same problems and should try to solve them together. Carbon leakage, green steel, research and development, jobs and skills—we will develop a whole package of measures as quickly as we can. We will ensure that the plan, which we will publish in the spring, is one for the whole country and secures steel in the UK.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

The ridiculous energy costs that the hon. Gentleman refers to are a result of 14 years of Conservative Government—we need to be really clear about that. His point about the steel strategy, which has already been made, is reasonable. Of course, Members are really keen for us to bring that strategy forward as soon as possible, but I repeat what I have said: we are looking at spending up to £2.5 billion, and there is absolutely no way that I, the Secretary of State, the Chancellor or the Prime Minister could come to this House and say, “Here is a steel strategy that we have written on the back of a fag packet after a couple of weeks thinking about it.” We need to do this right, and that is what we are doing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Ann Davies.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. I would like to follow up on a question from the hon. Member for Brycheiniog, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), because unlike at Scunthorpe, jobs at Port Talbot are not being saved. The Government say that instead, they will retrain workers through the employment and skills flexible fund. Seven months later, can the Secretary of State say exactly how that money has been spent, and how many of the 2,800 laid-off steelworkers at Port Talbot have been retrained or re-employed?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for promoting me to Secretary of State—I am actually just a junior Minister. She is right to raise the issue of Port Talbot. The transition board has papers that we can send her, which set out exactly how many people have gone through training processes. The number of people who have taken compulsory redundancy is very small; I might be wrong—I am speculating slightly—but I think it is in the region of 190. Those people have had a package of support, and a lot of detail is available through the transition board about how that support will be provided. Of course, about 5,000 jobs will be secure in Port Talbot, but the hon. Lady is right to raise the issue; it is a significant and important one that I would not want to downplay. The situation in Port Talbot was different, and we had to have a different response, but I am very happy to provide the information that she wants in more detail.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Jim Shannon to ask the final question from the Back Benches.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for all her hard work, and I thank the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Labour Government for their commitment to, and for saving, British Steel. There is no one in this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who is not aware of that and does not welcome it, so well done.

I welcome the Minister’s statement, but can she confirm that developers and those in the construction sector in Northern Ireland, where steel is really important, will be able to secure steel as a certainty, and at a reasonable price? Can she confirm that they will not be tempted to outsource for fear that orders will not be fulfilled, because British steel will be accessible, viable, ready and available to those in Northern Ireland who wish to use it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sarah Jones and Judith Cummins

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his supplementary question. As I said, we are working closely with our colleagues across Government to make sure we have the right intelligence and can make the right decisions where we need to act. He will be aware that other countries are introducing tariffs and taking a range of measures. Our sectors are very different from those of other countries—we are not the same as the US or the EU—and we need to respond in the right way when it comes to electric vehicles. For example, 80% of the vehicles we manufacture in the UK are exported, so our challenges are different.

However, the hon. Gentleman is right to raise these important issues, including the need to look at critical minerals and supply chains, and at how we can ensure we are getting as many parts as possible from countries with which we want to have a different relationship. That is why we have set up things such as the solar taskforce to ensure that when it comes to solar panels, for example, we are using the supply chains as best we can to make sure there is not a global monopoly and that we are economically secure as a country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

What we have this morning is another chapter in the growing theme of what the Government said before the election and what they are doing after the election being entirely different things. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked in May about reliance on Chinese EVs undercutting British workers and leaving us exposed, but by July she was talking about the benefits of trade with China. What we have seen in this Chamber this morning is that, while the rest of the world—the United States, Canada, the European Union—is acting on Chinese dominance in the EV market, the United Kingdom Government continue to dither. What is it to be: clear action on behalf of the UK automotive sector, or continued dither and failing to make a decision?

UK Steel Manufacturing

Debate between Sarah Jones and Judith Cummins

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his important question. We believe very firmly that a successful steel industry is critical to a vibrant and secure future. Crude steel production in the UK has declined by over 40% since 2010; that is a great shame, and we will be trying to reverse it. Virgin steel is incredibly important, which is why we have the £2.5 billion fund. We are looking at direct reduced iron production and other possibilities for the UK. We are working on it at pace, and I am happy to talk further about our thoughts.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The steel industry has been left in a mess after years of mismanagement. The abandonment of the industrial strategy by the previous Government has been a disaster right across our economy, but nowhere more so than in strategic heavy industries such as steel, which face many complex and interconnected challenges. We can all agree on the vital importance of steel production, whether that is in terms of national security or of providing the materials that we need for a green economy. It is equally clear that the steel industry needs to be supported to move towards greener methods of production and a more sustainable footing, while ensuring that jobs are protected.

The sector desperately needs the certainty of a new industrial strategy. Can the Minister give a clear timeline for exactly when we will see that industrial strategy? Can she confirm that when the Industrial Strategy Council is rebooted, it will be placed on a statutory footing through legislation so that it is properly empowered to support our industries in the long term?