Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is right. South Yorkshire has the highest level of hospital tooth extractions in England, and I want to assure him that we will target interventions at the areas of greatest need. For example, integrated care boards have started to advertise roles through our “golden hello” scheme, which will drive recruitment of graduate dentists to areas of greatest need for three years. We have inherited a mess and we are working at pace to clear it up.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is right to underline the issues for children, but can I remind him of the issues for those above the state pension age—which is increasing to 67, including for ladies—in particular when it comes to certain benefits, such as attendance allowance? Will he look at the contract for those who are elderly and in receipt of such benefits?

[Stephen Kinnock]

We are in a situation where a staggering 28% of the country—13 million people—have a need that is unmet by NHS dentistry. There are so many issues that we need to resolve. We are looking at the contract with the BDA and I am more than happy to look into the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Unpaid Carers

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right that many such networks, often informal, play a vital role in the community in providing that support and peer-to-peer support. So often unpaid carers can end up feeling quite isolated. Informal networks like the one she describes are vital and I commend the work of that network in achieving the objectives we all want to see.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister outlines the need for reform. I think many of us in the Chamber would like compassion and understanding to be key to that. Reforms are okay, but they need compassion and understanding to make them work.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. He has reminded the House that caring for friends and family is an important part of what it means to be human. It is at the heart of the desire to support one’s community, as well as one’s friends and family.

We must always approach this issue with compassion. We know that we have certain constraints as a Government in terms of what we are able to do, but I can assure the hon. Member that we are absolutely committed to fixing what is, broadly speaking, a broken system; indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has described the health and social care system as broken. We have to fix the foundations of that system, and unpaid carers are absolutely part of those foundations. We also have to ensure that unpaid carers have a strong voice in the consensus that we want to build around fixing the system. We know that if we are to build a national care service of which our entire country can be proud, we will need those reforms, but they must truly embody person-centred care and the role played by unpaid carers. To achieve that, I will engage with my counterparts across Government, with unpaid carers and with sector partners such as Carers UK and Carers Trust to ensure that their voices are heard.

I know that many of us were profoundly moved by the experiences of caring shared by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) during the general election campaign. As we have heard this evening, this is a subject of great significance for, and close to the heart of, Members on both sides of the House—including, of course, the hon. Member for North East Fife. I look forward to engaging with colleagues throughout the House on a cross-party basis, because we know that the consensus we need to build transcends narrow party political partisan divides. This is about building a system that is truly fit for the future, and fit for the country in which we live. So let us forge ahead together with the promise of that future in which unpaid carers are visible, valued and supported.

Question put and agreed to.

Partner and Spousal Visas: Minimum Income

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir George.

I thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for securing this important debate. He delivered an incredibly powerful speech that included examples of people who have had their lives turned upside down by the policy shift. Many individuals and families across the country have been profoundly impacted and there is real concern about the Government’s policy changes and handling of them. I will come to those points shortly. First, I want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), for their important contributions to this debate.

The policy change to raise the minimum income threshold to secure a visa for a spouse from £18,600 to £29,000 and then later £38,700 is the direct result of the Conservative Government wanting to bring down immigration, after having allowed net migration to spiral to record levels of 745,000 in 2022, despite their repeated promise to the electorate that they would bring numbers down to the tens of thousands. In 2019 the incoming Conservative Government promised to reduce net migration, which at that time was 245,000, but since then that figure has trebled.

Labour is aware of that trend. We have set out plans to reduce our economy’s reliance on migrant workers by reforming the skills system, getting people off long-term sick leave and back into work, ending the 20% discount for businesses recruiting from abroad in shortage sectors and expecting businesses to draw up workforce plans to ensure they are able to recruit more local resident talent.

On the specifics of this debate, the historical stated aim of the spousal visa threshold was to make sure that couples and families have the income that enables them to be self-reliant, so that they do not need to rely on our social security system. That is why the income threshold was set at around £18,600 previously, with additional requirements per dependant. We agree with that basic aim, which is why the level set must genuinely reflect the income needed and required to support family in the UK. It must not be a number plucked out of thin air arbitrarily. That is why we have consistently raised concerns about the lack of an evidence base behind the initial increase to £29,000.

Extraordinarily, the Government have failed to provide any impact assessment of the number of people who will be affected by the shift or who will be prevented from coming to Britain to join their loved ones. Although we support attempts to deliver more sustainable levels of net migration to get the balance right in our economy and society, the Government must be honest and clear in providing a full impact assessment, so that Members are able to fully understand the impact of the proposed changes on their constituents and make informed choices based on an informed analysis.

The Opposition are strong believers in evidence-based policymaking, in stark contrast to the Government, who appear to be addicted to headline chasing, performative posturing and making policy on the hoof. We find it deeply disappointing that Ministers have chosen to shoot from the hip on policies across the spectrum of Government. To have done so on the matter that we are debating today is particularly reprehensible, given how directly it impacts on the deeply personal life choices that people have made and are making. Indeed, by appearing to pull these £29,000 and £39,000 thresholds out of thin air, Ministers have quite frankly behaved in a glib and flippant manner that is both contemptuous of Parliament and shockingly disrespectful towards the couples and families whose lives have been turned upside down by these changes.

The failure, or refusal, of Ministers to publish the impact assessment is particularly baffling because we know that both financial and equalities impact assessments have been completed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central pointed out in his speech. A report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee makes clear its utter exasperation with repeated failures by the Home Office to publish the information that Members of both Houses need to properly scrutinise the proposed changes and consider their implications. In the Committee’s words:

“A failure to provide impact information and on a timely basis, makes it impossible for Parliament to scrutinise the legislation properly. Moreover, impact information should be a useful tool in the policymaking process, helping departments to refine and improve their proposals. It appears to us that, instead, the Home Office too often tacks on impact analysis as an afterthought.”

[Jim Shannon]

I apologise for intervening again, but I am very conscious that in Northern Ireland the average wage is £28,939. Many people are on a lesser wage than that. Does the shadow Minister believe that the Minister should ask, in my case, the Northern Ireland Assembly for their opinion on this? That would give him some realism about these facts and figures. The same thing should apply to the Scottish Parliament and indeed the Welsh Assembly, because connecting those three regions will produce with different figures.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the hon. Member for that excellent intervention. He is absolutely right, because the point he is making is that we need to get an aggregate picture of the overall impact of this policy across the United Kingdom. Of course, that aggregate picture needs to be built up through the building blocks of key stakeholders and inputs, including the part of the United Kingdom from which he comes; I am sure that colleagues in Scotland and Wales would concur. He is absolutely right.

For good measure, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report added that,

“We have criticised the Home Office’s explanatory material with such frequency that we are concerned there may be a systemic or cultural issue that is preventing the Home Office from getting it right.”

Will the Minister please explain the actual aim of this policy change? Is it to make sure that migrants are self-reliant and do not need to rely on our social security system, or has the aim changed? How was the £29,000 figure decided? Please could we see some workings around that? Why are the Government introducing a huge jump to almost £39,000? Again, why that particular number? Will he promise to consult fully on the impact of the £29,000 change and the need for any subsequent increase before moving any further? Why has he not provided an impact assessment for this policy, both for the £29,000 and the £39,000? Also, why has he not asked the Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review into this policy change, or even asked for the committee’s view on it?

The first thing Labour would do, if we are privileged enough to form the next Government, would be to ask the MAC to review this policy and to make recommendations about the level at which the threshold for spousal visas should be set in future. The MAC review that we would commission would consider a range of factors, including the historical aim of ensuring that migrants are able to be self-sufficient, and how the benefits system connects with that aim. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central suggested exploring the way in which the threshold might interact with the minimum wage. The review would also consider the number of people affected, how they will be impacted, and the overall impact on net migration.

The MAC has not commissioned a report specifically on the family visa issue since 2011-12, but in its 2020 annual report it said that, given the amount of time since the 2012 changes came into effect, a fresh review could be worth while:

“We…think now would be an opportune time to reconsider the minimum income requirements associated with this route. The MAC are concerned that previous analysis may have given too much weight to the fiscal contribution of such migrants and insufficient attention to the benefits that accrue, to both the family and society, from the route. In addition, it is a considerable time since the current income requirements were introduced, so more evidence should now be available to review the impact of these requirements”.

Will the Minister please explain why the Government have failed to act on the MAC’s 2020 suggestion? Will he now commit to requesting that review?

Hard-working, good people, their partners and their families are at the very heart of the policy, so why did it take so long for the Government to confirm that people who are already here and are reapplying will be exempt from the threshold rise? It caused a huge amount of undue hurt and anxiety, and I am afraid it confirmed the view, held by many, that the Government are motivated by performative cruelty. On a related point, will the Government make it clear to all those who started a new application before the changes were introduced that it will be processed under the old thresholds?

Finally, will the Minister at the very least commit to make a statement to the House setting out the results of the impact assessment, rather than bulldozing through secondary legislation that could have a far-reaching and profoundly damaging impact on the lives of couples and families all over Britain?

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Jim Shannon

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I do not know how many negotiations the hon. Lady has been in, but people do not generally go into negotiations by putting all their cards face up on the table. It is absolutely clear that a deal has to be done with the European Union. We do not do that deal from the Dispatch Box; we do it with hard graft, common sense and quiet diplomacy, none of which the Conservatives are capable of. That is why they need to get out of the way so that a Labour Government can fix the problem.

Clause 51 stands as evidence that vague promises from Ministers are not to be taken seriously. I find it particularly telling that, in drafting the clause, the Government were not even able to come up with a definition of a “safe and legal route” or how one should work. Nor do they appear to have any idea of who such routes should apply to, when the measures might be introduced, how many people would be included or exempted from the cap, or who—other than local authorities —the Government may consult. The Opposition’s amendments would address those challenges.

On Second Reading, I said that under this Government, Ministers had done

“little more than pay lip service”—[Official Report, 13 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 640]

to the principle of authorised safe routes for refugees and others in protection. I stand by that assessment.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the shadow Minister agree that, when it comes to honouring statements that we have made, we have an obligation towards those from Afghanistan who served alongside British soldiers? Some are in the system but are yet to be processed. Would the shadow Minister ensure that those from Afghanistan who are stuck in Pakistan and in Syria get here as asylum seekers, which is very much what they are?

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. The performance on the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme has been abject. Under pathway 2 of that scheme, 22 Afghans have come over in the last year. They are being told that they can come only once they have accommodation, and they are being treated with a total lack of respect when we owe them a debt of honour and gratitude.

Occupied Palestinian Territories

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Jim Shannon

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered settlement and annexation of the Occupied Palestinian territories.

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this crucially important debate. As the outgoing chair of the British-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, I pay particular tribute to colleagues who have been such powerful advocates for peace, justice and security in this troubled land, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), who will be taking over as chair of the APPG. I wish her well.

I start by setting out three core principles, which I hope and believe are shared by all who are taking part in this debate. First, this is not about religion or ethnicity. It is not a question of Arab, Muslim or Jewish identity. It is about upholding the universal norms and values that we hold dear, and it is about working to constrain and reverse the actions of those who seek to undermine those norms and values. Nor is this about being pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. This is about striving for peace, justice and security for all.

Secondly, we condemn violence in all its forms, whether it is Hamas launching rockets or the Israel Defence Forces bombarding Gaza or bulldozing Bedouin villages to make way for illegal settlements. We oppose any and all actions that lead to the death and destruction that have so tragically come to define this conflict.

Thirdly, we believe passionately in the rule of law. Indeed, our point of departure is that the rule of law is not up for negotiation. It is not some bargaining chip that can be tossed on to the table in exchange for concessions or compromises; it is the very cornerstone of the rules-based order and the bedrock of the norms, rights and values that we cherish and seek to defend.

I believe that our defence of the rule of law matters more now than it has done at any time since 1945, because we stand today at a moment in history when the rule of law is under threat across the world. The Chinese Communist party has breached the Sino-British declaration on Hong Kong, the Russian Government annexed Crimea in 2014 and, deeply regrettably, even our own Government are willing to renege on their commitment to a legally binding treaty.

Israel’s consistent flouting of UN resolutions and the fourth Geneva convention has undermined the rules-based order for decades, and the international community can no longer just look the other way. Both sides in this conflict have witnessed horrific bloodshed and both sides deserve an end to the fear and suffering that they have had to experience. That is why it is so vital and urgent that the rule of law be brought to bear as the foundation upon which a viable and sustainable Palestine can be negotiated and built—a Palestine that protects the rights of its citizens and lives in peace with its neighbours.

The illegal Israeli settlements undermine all three of the principles that I have set out. They drive and amplify the vicious identity politics that poisons this conflict. They cause violence on a daily basis and they are a flagrant breach of international law, yet they continue and expand.

In 2018, we marked 25 years since the signing of the Oslo accords. That moment in 1993 was meant to herald a new and lasting era of peace and co-existence—the beginning of a genuine two-state solution—but since then, the number of illegal settlers has increased from 258,000 to more than 610,000. Fifty thousand homes and properties have been demolished, and an illegal separation barrier has been built that carves up the west bank and brutally disconnects towns, cities, families and communities from each other. What have the Israeli people experienced in that time? They have experienced insecurity, fear of attacks through suicide bombings, rockets and mortars, knife attacks and car rammings. None of this will end while there is no proper peace and no end to the occupation. It has been a disaster for all sides in this conflict.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the balanced way in which he is opening this debate. The events of the recent weeks have encouraged me and many others; I wonder whether they have encouraged him as well. They have shown that the 70-year unresolved conflict between Israel and the Arabs will no longer be allowed to define regional dynamics and relations. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this new outside-in approach to peace offers an invaluable opportunity to transform the entire region, and that there is an opportunity to move forward together, perhaps with a two-state solution?

[Stephen Kinnock]

We certainly welcome any steps towards peace and conflict resolution, but we should be realistic about what the so-called Abraham accords really signify. The reality is that the United Arab Emirates and Israel have never been at war with each other. They have pre-existing and long-standing relations. Indeed, they have co-operated on military matters, in counter-revolutions, and in coups in many of the Arab League states. We should be realistic that this is really more the formalisation of pre-existing relations, rather than something new. Nevertheless, it is to be welcomed.

Sector Deal for Steel

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The sector deal has been submitted under the umbrella of UK Steel and EEF, but with the full participation and support of Tata Steel, British Steel, Liberty Steel, Celsa Steel and a number of other key players in the sector. The steel industry really speaks with one voice on this.

Without a cost-competitive energy environment, steel companies cannot invest in the future, and the industry can survive only when it has the potential to thrive. Steel is too important a product for our economy, our security, our communities and our standing as a nation for us to have to rely on others for it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The fact that the UK produced some 8 million tonnes of steel in 2016, while China produced 808 million tonnes shows a vast difference. Does the hon. Gentleman agree—I think he is basically saying this—that it may now be time for the Government to enter into negotiations with the companies and also the unions to ensure that we have a manufacturing base for steel in future? We will not have one unless the Government act. It is time that they did.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I will come on to explain, the sector proposal is the litmus test for the Government. We have had years and years of warm words, but this really is the moment to see whether the Government are serious about providing the support they say they want to provide.

Steel enables transport, construction, manufacturing, energy and consumer goods—you name it, Sir Henry, and if steel is not in it, it was almost certainly used to make, process or transport it. Steel is truly a foundation industry, and demand is growing. The report published last week, “Future Capacities and Capabilities of the UK Steel Industry”, showed that, by 2030, domestic demand for finished steel products will have grown by almost 2 million tonnes. That leaves almost 7 million tonnes of domestic demand to be met by the UK steel industry, which equates to a £3.8 billion opportunity per year.

That value is even greater if we consider all that steel goes into. Almost half the content of all cars built in the UK is British steel. In researching the “Steel 2020” report by the all-party parliamentary group on steel and metal related industries last year—I have a copy with me; I am sure the Minister has already read it, but I would be happy to hand it over—we heard from leading figures in the car industry that the presence of a successful domestic steel industry is a key determinant of where steel is sourced.

Steel is vital to the future of UK car manufacturing and innovation. Take the much-vaunted electric and self-driving cars, which were championed by the Chancellor in last month’s Budget. Along with the normal steel content of any car, what do hon. Members think their batteries are cased in? Steel. If we are to invest billions in that new technology, why on earth would we not invest in the capacity to monetise those innovations? If we do not have the capacity to manufacture, or the capacity to produce the steel for the batteries and the machines that manufacture them, we will lose out. The steel will be Chinese. The manufacturing and machinery will be German, and we will have spent billions on an idea that sees profit not in Port Talbot, Sheffield or Redcar, but in IJmuiden, Tangshan or Duisburg.

Despite investment in R and D falling by 90% over the past 25 years, the UK steel industry is still at the cutting edge. More than two thirds of steel produced in the UK today did not even exist a decade ago, so we should not let anybody tell us that steel is a sunset industry. It is an industry that is building a Britain for the future, which is why a go-ahead for the sector deal is vital. It is also important because steel is the ultimate economic and social multiplier. For every £1 of public investment in steel R and D, the return averages between £6 and £16. That means the £60 million transformation fund in the sector deal could add up to £960 million for the UK economy. I do not know about you, Sir Henry, but investing £60 million for almost a £1 billion return feels like a pretty good investment to me.

On average, steel jobs pay 40% higher than the average in the steel heartlands of Wales and Yorkshire and the Humber. Every steel job supports at least three further jobs in the local community and the national economy. Losing the steel industry would devastate towns such as Port Talbot, but the knock-on effects would be equally catastrophic. If the Port Talbot steelworks were to close, it would cost 40,000 jobs across Wales and the UK, costing the Government a total of £4.6 billion in benefits and lost tax revenue and reducing household spending in the economy by £3 billion over 10 years.

If we were to reshape the energy market, as the steel sector deal calls for, the most it would cost would be the equivalent of 57p per household per year. That is 57p a year against almost £8 billion in lost spending, tax and benefit payments if things were to go wrong. Once again, Sir Henry, that looks like a pretty good return on investment to me. There is a golden opportunity, with huge potential for growth. We should all applaud the Government for crossing the Rubicon and accepting the need for an industrial strategy, but the fact of the matter is that, if the Government fail to support the sector deal, that strategy will not be worth the paper it is written on.

Speed is of the essence. Steel companies only have so much capital to invest. That capital is spread across their global businesses, and if they cannot invest it here and now, it will go elsewhere. That is the nature of the beast. We have already seen Liberty spend almost £1 billion in Australia, and there are reports that British Steel—formerly Tata Long Products—is looking at an Italian plant. The clock is ticking and time is running out.

With the uncertainties of Brexit, the Government should be biting the hand off of anyone willing to invest at this time. Instead, steel companies have been fobbed off with all sorts of excuses. They submitted the sector deal on 7 September, but were only granted a meeting with the Minister at the very end of November—hardly the behaviour of a Government serious about supporting this foundational domestic industry. The fact is that the Government’s failure to engage on the steel asks set the tone. The sad reality is that trust between the Government and the steel industry has been shot to pieces. Warm words are no good to anyone if they are matched only by frozen actions.

Leaving the EU: Wales

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree absolutely that the role the CAP has played in the agricultural industry in Wales and the UK, and indeed across the entire European Union, has been critical and has supported thousands of farmers and their livelihoods. I will talk a little later about how we need to see a clear commitment to long-term funding to replace every aspect of the European funding on a like-for-like basis, including the CAP.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. Does he agree that European funding has been used to great advantage, including in Northern Ireland, but that Brexit signals not an end to the funding of worthy schemes but rather a new way of distribution and the opportunity to ensure that the schemes that are funded are necessary and helpful to local communities? With that in mind, the Government have committed to helping to ensure that the farming grants and community schemes are retained within this Parliament, until 2020. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that with Brexit, we have a new way of doing things?

[Stephen Kinnock]

There is an old phrase, “Never let a crisis go to waste”. Brexit has caused a crisis, and that opens up massive questions about where we go now as a country. A major part of that, of course, is what will happen in Northern Ireland. The Government have made commitments up to 2020, but 2020 is within the blink of an eye. We need a far more long-term plan and a strategy that goes way beyond that.

EU Referendum: UK Steel Industry

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I rise to support the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and commend him for the excellent way he introduced this debate on British steel. I wanted to add a contribution from a Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland. We do not have a steel industry in Northern Ireland, but we are very supportive of British steel, what it does, the jobs it creates and the fact that it is British. We are, of course, very much a British part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and wish to continue to be so.

I have a couple of quick comments to make in the short time I have. A collection of economic factors causing negativity in the UK steel market have put increasing pressure on steelworks—I am well aware of that, as are other Members. Demand for steel in the UK has never recovered from the financial crisis of some years ago, remaining 30% lower than pre-2008 levels. Energy costs are a massive issue for us in Northern Ireland, as they are for the British steel industry. Business rates and environmental taxes have squeezed the industry that wee bit more.

We have also had problems with the Chinese steelmakers. It is estimated that they lost millions—indeed, probably billions—of dollars in 2015 as domestic demand slowed but GDP targets remained stubborn. As a result, steel exports from China to Europe have more than doubled since 2013, helping to send the price of the metal down to roughly half of 2011 levels. The EU could have introduced tariffs to address the problem, yet failed to do so. People sometimes say that tariffs are self-defeating, but I do not subscribe to that view. They can encourage our industry, and I believe we should introduce them. The US, for example, has a heavy tariff on Chinese steel imports of a whopping 236%. If the USA can do it, I do not see why we cannot do it here. Perhaps the Minister can explain.

Brexit is now over and the decision has been made. For the record, I was very much in favour of the campaign to leave the EU and I am very pleased that the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland decided to do that. Let us move forward together collectively and positively to see what we can do for British industry. The problems with the EU were real. It would have taken all 28 member states to agree to a tariff, so it was never going to be a possibility.

Let us look at some examples of where problems still exist in Europe. Take Belgium, for example, home to—I say this facetiously—the circus HQ. The EU has called for Belgium to recover €211 million of state aid that was used to prop up the steelmaker Duferco, while an investigation has been launched into Italy’s support for Ilva. The Belgian support was considered illegal because

“you could not find a market investor that would give them the kinds of loans they got from the authorities”.

Belgium and Italy tried to do it, but the EU pulled them back. Now that we are out of Europe, we can be free of the shackles we once wore and move forward. There is an opportunity for the new UK Administration, under a new leader, to make the difference and make changes.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Surely if we stay in the single market in some way, shape or form, we will still be subject to its rules and regulations.

[Jim Shannon]

There is much to be discussed after Brexit, and that is one aspect. I am very keen for the debates to start. Let us move forward and be positive—the glass is half full. We are looking forward to supporting our industry and making sure that we can deliver for it.

Let us be positive and upbeat. We now have the power, at least in principle, for the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the 11,000 jobs at Port Talbot in particular are kept safe, as well as those throughout the whole United Kingdom, in Scotland and elsewhere. We have to remain positive and consider the new possibility of offering tailor-made Government support. Steel prices are rising, which means that Tata Steel will be in much less of a hurry to sell up and get out of the UK than it once was.

Let us give credit where credit is due: the Government have worked hard and the Minister has been industrious. She has responded to several debates and made very clear, positive comments. I know she is committed to British steel, but we need to see more practical changes. Although the pressure on Tata to sell has been reduced by the array of slightly more positive factors, it is imperative that the Government have in place the contingency plans needed for all possible outcomes.

It is encouraging to see the Business Secretary take such an active and positive role, but we must remember the livelihoods and families at stake. The deliberations on the issue, and the eventual strategies that are delivered, must deliver a British steel industry that succeeds and is here into the infinite future. We must retain the jobs and our position as a manufacturer.