Westminster Hall

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 25 January 2023

[Esther McVey in the Chair]

Public Procurement Processes

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered reform of public procurement processes.

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and I am grateful to Members for participating in this important debate.

The House is considering the Procurement Bill, and I stress that I and my party fully appreciate the need for legislation on the issue. That is why Labour did not oppose the passage of the Government’s Bill on Second Reading. Indeed, I had entertained the hope that the sentiment expressed in the Green Paper that preceded the Bill that social value

“is critical to ensuring the social, economic and environmental benefits are delivered”

would find a place in the Bill itself.

I do not believe that addressing the needs of our communities across the country by embedding a requirement for a measure of social value to be integral to every contract awarded is either unreasonable or beyond our powers. After all, we are talking about public contracts that account for £1 in every £3 of taxpayers’ money spent, totalling £300 billion of public funds every year. That spending should bring direct benefits to the people of this country, not primarily to the corporations that win most contracts, and still less to those in tax havens who utilise loopholes in the law to siphon taxpayers’ money into offshore accounts. However, the Bill does not match the scale or scope of reform to public procurement procedures required to ensure that it addresses the needs of the British people following the UK’s exit from the EU. Nor does it provide guarantees that the danger of corruption will be permanently removed from the process of awarding contracts.

My objective in today’s debate is to highlight the Bill’s shortcomings and to propose ways in which we could achieve a change in legislation that resulted in a public procurement legislative framework that could radically improve our public services, boost our local economies and deliver real benefits and hope for the future to the people of so many of our left-behind towns, such as Birkenhead, the constituency I am privileged to represent. Moreover, through root-and-branch reform of the process, we could ensure that the strides we need to take towards our net zero target were quicker and longer.

Let me begin with an issue close to my heart. The Mersey ferries are an iconic and world-famous symbol of Merseyside. After years of transporting tourists and commuters alike across the river, they need renewing. The Mayor of the Liverpool city region, Steve Rotheram, won a grant for one to be replaced and the other refurbished. That is to be warmly welcomed, and I am as grateful as Steve was for the opportunity to retain and refresh such an important and historic transport system, but what happened next goes to the heart of the public procurement process. Unfortunately, it is not addressed by the Bill.

Birkenhead is a shipbuilding town and home to the world-famous Cammell Laird shipyard. In any rational world, it would make perfect sense to build and refurbish the ferries in the shipyard that sits on the river they will be sailing on. Sadly, neither the existing procurement rules nor those proposed in the Bill provide us with the means to ensure that such a rational decision is the one that gets made. The reason for that is simple: there is no provision for vital issues such as the impact on social value, the local economy and the supply chain to be taken into account in the awarding of contracts. Quite the reverse: under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, the primary consideration in accepting a bid has to be

“getting the right supplier and best tender in accordance with sound commercial practice.”

That so-called sound commercial practice tied the hands of the Mayor of the Liverpool city region regarding the tendering process for the Mersey ferries. The Mayor, the trade unions, Cammell Laird and I, as the local MP, worked hard to find solutions, and eventually a joint venture was agreed between a Dutch shipbuilding firm and Cammell Laird, but under the existing rules the allocation of the work—the amount of work that could be awarded to each site—could not be agreed or decided by the Mayor, despite him being the contracting authority.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman is making that point about participation. The Senedd in Cardiff is introducing a Welsh procurement policy under the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Bill, which is part of the agenda to involve trade unions and others when delivering public projects with certain objectives. I think he shares that aim, but does he share my concern that the Government’s recent attacks on trade unions and the right to strike could undermine that approach of introducing a broader range of people into the process of public procurement?

[Mick Whitley]

Public procurement is for all, not just the Government or privateers. This is all about social value.

The fact that a vital local employer in Birkenhead, a deprived constituency, was at the mercy of a Dutch company is a very good reason why the public procurement process needs to be reformed. Social value is not an empty phrase. Cammell Laird is the largest employer in my constituency. Birkenhead has an above-average number of benefit claimants, who struggle to survive, so work flowing into Cammell Laird is vital to turn despair and poverty into hope and prosperity, yet the opportunity to create such work was hindered by the legal restrictions surrounding the existing procurement process. That problem is not addressed by the Procurement Bill, because it excludes social value—a key measure of the overall value of any contract.

Value for money has come to mean the cheapest bid, not the best bid. As a result, Cammell Laird and the workers in my constituency suffered a blow. The bulk of the work of the ferries contracts goes through a Dutch company, which I have been told will be keeping its costs low and its profits high by outsourcing work on Mersey Ferries to Romania. That is a glaring example of how public money has not served the public good. I am pleased for the workers of Belfast and Devon that Harland & Wolff and BMT were included in a winning Team Resolute bid, but there is no guarantee of the amount of work they will get as a result of the contract.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On that point, is the hon. Gentleman concerned about the climate change impact—the carbon impact—of getting stuff and people from further away, the social issues that that causes, and the effect on the people who live locally?

[Mick Whitley]

The hon. Lady makes a good point, which I will cover a bit later.

Team Resolute is led by a Spanish ship company called Navantia, which is guaranteed to get at least 40% of the work, worth about £640 million. Ministers have confirmed that there is no limit on the jobs it can create in Spain. As for Navantia being part of a UK consortium, it is true that the bid includes Navantia UK, but here’s the rub: Navantia UK was created only in May last year as a subsidiary of the Spanish firm. It has no trading history, and its two directors live in Spain.

At the very heart of the problem lies the fact that a social value calculation is not included in the public procurement process. My call on the Government is simple: make it a compulsory component—make its inclusion in the consideration of all bids compulsory.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the other House, Members expressed concern that the Procurement Bill falls short of the Green Paper, in that there is no exact definition of key procurement principles, there are no specific requirements on climate objectives and, as he just said, there is no real emphasis on social value elements?

[Mick Whitley]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I am just about to cover that point.

Only by including a social value calculation can we ensure that every contract is transparent, and that its impact on local communities, job creation, the standard of jobs and the local economy is taken into account and plays a key part in shaping the final decision. Its absence from the Bill is even more surprising given the noise the Cabinet Office made in response to the consultation on the original Green Paper, “Transforming Public Procurement”. The Cabinet Office wrote last December that social value

“can play a big role in contributing to the Government’s levelling-up goals.”

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Social value is not restricted to these shores. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that China has a very prescriptive regime, particularly in relation to people in Xinjiang province. In this country, Hikvision produces CCTV equipment for councils. Does he agree that the Government need to be much more careful about allowing such companies into the UK market?

[Mick Whitley]

Yes, I do agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

In December 2020, the Cabinet Office published a social value model that said there should be a requirement on Government Departments to evaluate social value when awarding contracts, and not, as previously, just to consider it. Yet when it came to publishing the Procurement Bill, there were no explicit references to social value, so Labour MPs and peers have raised it as something that should be integral to the Bill and the public procurement process.

Another problem with the Procurement Bill as it stands is that it contains no provisions to ensure that bad employers are prevented from winning contracts. Far too many bad employers exist and far too many of them profit from public procurement contracts. A decent Procurement Bill can address that with construction projects nationally and by legislating to tie local government contracts to a clear and fair employment charter of the kind that already exists in the Liverpool city region.

Contracting authorities should be obliged to build into every contract that involves even a penny of public money a cast-iron guarantee that fair employment practices and the right to trade union recognition will be respected. There are other aspects of public procurement, such as strict conditions regarding the need to meet our climate targets and helping to regenerate our country through a green industrial revolution, but I wish to finish on a very important principle that must be embedded into the reform of public procurement: a watertight mechanism to put an end to cronyism.

The Bill hands more powers to Ministers without any meaningful safeguards to ensure that decisions will not be determined by favouritism at best and cronyism at worst. This is not an abstract issue: it is, sadly, a real problem that has led to major scandals. While the country was rocked by the curse of covid, a VIP lane was opened to enrich friends of Conservative Ministers and donors to their party coffers. Taxpayers’ money was doled out without any proper scrutiny. As a result, orders of personal protective equipment were handed out to companies that had no track record of producing or providing medical equipment. More than half the £1.7 billion paid by the Government to politically connected VIP companies to supply PPE in the pandemic was spent on equipment that has not been used, according to new figures.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making a really important speech. He talked about NHS procurement, and social value must surely include saving lives. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for radiotherapy and last week we met oncologists, radiotherapists and cancer-centre managers. They say that one reason why we are not saving as many cancer patients’ lives as equivalent countries around the world is that we do not have a centralised procurement system for linear accelerators. As a result, we are 120 machines down on where we should be, and hundreds of machines are more than 10 years old. Does he agree that the Minister ought to consider central procurement, so that every part of the country has the up-to-date machinery to save lives through radiotherapy?

[Mick Whitley]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Government must be aware that the supply chains are too long. Instead of offshoring, they need to inshore.

Public money has been wasted on an industrial scale, and the ability of Ministers to throw taxpayers’ money away is now being codified in the Procurement Bill. Conservative peers voted down an amendment to ban the use of VIP lanes in the awarding of contracts. Together, my Labour colleagues and I will do our level best to change that and get the VIP lanes closed for good. The High Court has agreed with us and ruled the VIP lanes illegal.

[Peter Dowd]

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend in mid flow. He has dealt with some specifics, but one of my concerns is that there does not appear to be any real assessment of how the measures in the Procurement Bill will fulfil its principles. For example, the Government want to launch new measures to promote jobs and new skills, but how many, and what sort of skills? They want to encourage economic prosperity and growth—God knows, we need it—but there is no indication of how. They want to tackle climate change and level up, but there are no indicators and no metrics at all to assess that. Does he agree that we need not just words but facts and assessment to back this up?

[Mick Whitley]

Yes, and the Minister should address that question in his response.

In summary, we cannot continue with a system under which one in six procurement contracts over a five-year period was found by the Fair Tax Foundation to have been awarded to companies with connections to tax havens. We cannot continue with VIP lanes. We need a system that is accountable and transparent and made watertight against cronyism; that places social value, local economies and fair employment practices at its heart; that enables the Government to recoup money from those who fail to deliver; that gives real opportunity to small, medium and social enterprises to win; and that recognises that outsourcing has been a complete failure and the time for a return to insourcing is overdue. Without extensive amendment, the Procurement Bill does none of those things.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak. We will go to the Front Benchers no later than 10.33 am, mindful of the fact that Mick Whitley will need time to wind up the debate.

09:45

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak under your chairpersonship, Ms McVey.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), who has made a great contribution to the debate. I agree with him that the procurement of services and goods during the pandemic was a disgrace. It is hard to avoid the word “racketeering” when we consider what happened. There was a time when suppliers would meet on the golf course—perhaps at the 19th hole, as they used to say—to rig the prices for providing services to local councils, and there was debate about whether that took place in freemasons’ lodges and elsewhere; now, it seems that they just pick up the phone to a Tory Minister or MP and it gives them access to the VIP lane.

One pound in every £3 of public spending goes on procurement, and possibly more. It is around £300 billion, which is an astonishing amount of money. The OECD, the European Commission and the United Nations have all said that procurement carries the biggest risk of corruption or fraud in modern states. Of the £12 billion that was spent on PPE, £4 billion was spent on contracts that failed to meet the NHS standards—a third was spent on supplies that were not fit for purpose. Some £10.5 billion-worth of contracts was awarded without any fair or open competition in a seven-month period at the height of the pandemic. We understand that there was a national crisis and huge pressure on the NHS, but notwithstanding that, something went badly wrong; everybody must agree with that.

[Peter Dowd]

It is interesting that a Government publication said:

“Value to the taxpayer should lie at the heart of our procurement decisions.”

Does my hon. Friend believe that there was value for the taxpayer in that particular process?

[Jon Trickett]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask that question. No convincing answer has been provided as to whether value for money was achieved. In fact, it is as plain as the nose on your face that there was no value for money, and I will come to that in a second.

In recent decades, there has been a presumption in favour of outsourcing. That was never the case before. Britain used to be proud of its public service and of the high standards of ethics in the civil service and in politics. It is hard to share that pride these days. The presumption in favour of outsourcing contracts and obtaining services from the private sector has gone through the leadership of all the political parties, and it is time it stopped.

There are seven separate reasons why one should be cautious about that presumption. I hasten to say, though, that there will always be a case for some procurement from the private sector—for instance, police motorbikes will not be nationalised in the immediate future, so one can see that there is a case there—but the presumption should end. Let me briefly refer to the seven issues that it is important to consider.

First, the Government Procurement Service is not as professional as it needs to be. It is possible to get a university degree these days in good procurement practice. That is a necessity to ensure value for money for every penny spent, but the service is under-resourced and not as professional as it needs to be. That is not to criticise the civil servants who do a difficult job in difficult circumstances, but they are in danger of being flooded by the provision of contracts.

I worked in the private sector, as a plumber in the building industry. We were monitored by the main developers to make sure that we provided value for money. Quite often, I confess, we would see whether we could get extras built in on top of the money in the original contract. It was for the quantity surveyors who worked for the developers and builders to make sure that we did not get away with anything. Can we honestly say that every single line in every contract is monitored in the same way as in the private sector? I do not think we can. The reason is because staff are under-resourced, and we are under-resourced because we are outsourcing as an ideological decision rather than anything else.

Here is my second point. More often than not, there is no public comparator. When I was the leader of Leeds City Council, I would ensure that if something was going out to the private sector, there would be a public sector bid made by the council, which would not have a slice on top for profitability. I would then see whether the private sector could compete with the public sector bid. That is one thing that might be done, but there are no public sector comparators under the present neoliberal economic settlement, which we regard with despair, to be honest. Therefore, there is no guarantee that a cartel or group of racketeers is not fixing prices between them to rip off the taxpayer. We cannot be clear about whether that is happening, although without a proper procurement service, I am sure that it is.

My third point is this. No evidence has been produced anywhere in the world that outsourcing is cheaper than insourcing. It has been looked at by the Public Accounts Committee and various bodies throughout the world. What is striking is that larger global companies are now insourcing. They were outsourcing, buying in accountancy and legal services and so on. That is stopping. Why are they insourcing? Because it is cheaper and more effective, and delivers better value for money. Yet here we are with a Government that seem hellbent on outsourcing, for ideological reasons rather than to protect the public purse.

My fourth point is that the private sector puts in prices, but the first thing it does when it wins the contract is to drive down the pay and conditions of the staff employed. Wherever one looks, that is the case. I have experience of that in my constituency. We had a service for cleaning a school a few years ago. The first thing the company did was to cut wages and try to get rid of some of the staff. The staff went on strike, which went on a long time, and the school was filthy. That contract was frankly a disgrace. We all know that that happens everywhere. We see wages falling as a share of GDP. What is the process behind that happening? There are a number of processes, but one is outsourcing, driving down wages in order to increase profits.

My fifth point is this. A service provided in the public sector is motivated by the single ethos of public service. It tries to provide a service to the public without a mind to delivering profits and dividends to shareholders. There are two contesting ethoses—if that is the correct plural—in play. One is serving and enhancing shareholder value as a private sector provider; the other is public service. Well, I know what I want for the staff who treat me, my family or my constituents. I want people who are motivated by one thing only: providing the highest possible quality service. That is what motivated people. The three women I just talked about, who were cleaners and went on strike, were treated in a really shabby way. Their greatest concern was the kids left in the school. The toilets were not being cleaned. They would talk to me regularly about their guilty consciences at being unable to provide the service. They were interested in only one thing: providing a service to those children.

[Kirsty Blackman]

On the point about wages, does the hon. Member share my concern that, although we have control of public sector wages, the Conservatives are not keen on negotiating fair pay settlements? That means that public sector wages are actually being reduced and done down, compared with where they should be.

[Jon Trickett]

I totally agree with the hon. Member. We are seeing a fragmentation of the labour market and the driving down of people’s incomes—particularly of manual workers and others—and I resent it, on behalf of those people. It is not right for the country; after all, if wages are in long-term decline, the economy itself will be in long-term decline as well.

My sixth and penultimate point is about pay and pay ratios. What happens in the public sector—although we would have to say, if we were living in a purely ethical economic environment, that certain public servants are probably paid more than they ought to be—is that pay ratios accelerate the minute a service is outsourced, to the point where we see people earning massive multiples of what the lowest paid in the same service receive. That is not congenial to providing a public-oriented service, which is what we would want to see. Pay ratios in the public sector are accountable through Parliament to the public in a way that they are not once they have been privatised. Indeed, once a service has been privatised—outsourced—it is no longer subject to all the constraints that the public sector has to operate under. Indeed, one further point to make is that if I want to understand why a public sector service in my constituency or the country is deteriorating, I can submit a freedom of information request or ask questions in Parliament. The minute that service has been privatised, we cannot do that, so it is not accountable.

My final point is about the impact on the local and national economy. If we do not control procurement in a proper way, we are unable to direct it to local providers of services in a way that we would expect to be able to do with taxpayers’ money. That has an impact, too, on the local economy.

For all those reasons, this is an important debate, and I am glad that it was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead. It is beyond the legislation that is before us. We need an ideological shift; we need a presumption in favour of the public sector, not the private sector, and I hope that I have contributed in a small way to making an argument for that.

09:58

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for introducing the debate. I often come to support him in his debates in Westminster Hall, and I am here today to do the same, because he raises important issues and I want to add my support. It is also a pleasure to follow the contribution of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), which also was full of detailed evidence and content.

The hon. Member for Birkenhead referred to the Procurement Bill, which is currently going through Parliament. It applies to the devolved institutions, including Northern Ireland; however, we maintain our own legal framework for Northern Ireland, so that might give us a bit more input in the process as we go forward. It is no secret that I am a Brexiteer like yourself, Ms McVey, and I am proud to be a Brexiteer. I have always been positive about the opportunities provided to us by leaving the EU, notably our chance to secure British contracts with British companies to secure jobs for our people—for my constituents and the constituents of everybody here. It is great to be here to discuss how we can encourage that through the procurement process. I particularly look forward to the Minister’s response. I am fairly sure that we are on the same page. That being the case, I will ask my question only at the end of my contribution. I am keen to get the Minister’s response.

It is always important that we take the correct steps for our economy in terms of where we produce our products and where we procure them from. Some say that we have made mistakes in the past—it would be unfair to say that we have not, especially throughout the pandemic—but the principle behind the Bill gives us an opportunity to change that. A classic example from Northern Ireland, which I have referred to, goes back to March 2022, when leading UK bus manufacturer, Wrightbus, announced its second international zero-emission bus deal in a fortnight, under which it will ship dozens of clean buses to Europe. That is really good news.

Wrightbus has signed a deal with the German bus operator Regionalverkehr Köln GmbH, or RVK as it is better known—that is easier for me to say than to try and speak German—to supply up to up to 60 Kite Hydroliner single-decker buses over the next two years. All of those buses will be fully built at the Wrightbus factory in Ballymena, north Antrim, supporting green jobs and the wider Northern Ireland economy. While that is a welcome step, I can remember a time—of course, my lifetime is maybe a bit more than others—when London buses were ordered from Egypt, despite the UK containing the world-renowned manufacturer Wrightbus. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), and thank him for his energy and commitment in pursuing Wrightbus deals, not just in the United Kingdom but across the whole world. His pushing for that company as its MP has certainly paid dividends.

Thankfully, the procurement of London buses was brought home and the superior manufacturing that takes place in Ballymena is securing additional projects, but my point is that we need a legislative change to ensure that contracts within the UK are weighted, with procurement taking into account the impact on the local economy. While we have to remain competitive, every Government contract must consider our own manufacturers; we are indebted to them, and should be focusing on them, outsourcing only when there are exceptional reasons for doing so. That includes British companies that operate outside the United Kingdom.

In addition, I recall from a debate I spoke in some time ago that it had been highlighted by the House of Lords that the NHS sourced materials made by the forced labour of Christians, Tibetans, Uyghurs and Falun Gong practitioners in Xinjiang, China, and the Government took steps to deal with that. That has also become an issue in international procurement: making sure that the materials we rely on are not made or processed by those subject to human rights violations such as forced labour, child labour, unsafe working conditions or illegal wages. Those human rights violations have become increasingly apparent in the apparel sector—clothes, handbags, accessories and so on—where young children are being trafficked into child labour and forced to produce affordable clothes. Those clothes will attract millions of people internationally, but the price—the human rights price, the physical price, the emotional price—is just too high.

Our national procurement policy statement will ultimately ask public authorities to consider benefits for the public, such as the creation of new jobs, improving diversity, and ensuring integrity and value for money. I put great stress on integrity, and I think it is important that we focus on that as well. Many think that we must procure internationally to be successful and diverse; however, I suggest that there are numerous opportunities in our own back yard that we can take advantage of. We should be focusing on those and supporting them, not to the detriment of elsewhere in the world, but certainly to the advantage of our own manufacturers.

I have mentioned the importance of defence and cyber-security procurement for the United Kingdom. Contractors such as GKN Aerospace, or Thales in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), have the capacity to build our own products to the highest standard, and should be made aware of more procurement opportunities.

[Peter Dowd]

One definition of contract monitoring is the process of tracking the performance and status of contracts, to ensure that the obligations within them are being fulfilled as intended; it is not just about the purchase of a contract, but the monitoring. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the current climate, given the massive cuts that local government has endured over the past 13 years, it is being denuded of its ability to monitor some of those contracts, and that that issue has to be addressed as well?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which was succinctly put. I am sure that the Minister is taking notes, and I hope that he will reply to his request.

It is right that we oversee and ensure that local government, wherever it may be, has the same opportunity and is not precluded by financial or other restrictions. In Northern Ireland, we are fortunate to have some of the best cyber-security companies in the whole of the United Kingdom. There are some in south-east England that perhaps might be able to match them, but we have been at the fore in cyber-security, and that includes the two companies that I referred to. Thales, for instance, is at the fore in supporting the NLAWs—next generation light anti-tank weapons—being provided to Ukraine. Again, our cyber-security is excellent. Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland must be included in the Procurement Bill? Its inclusion will bring significant benefits for the country and Northern Ireland businesses, as well as our great Union, which we are here to protect and promote.

To conclude, many would say that it is time that the Bill is put into law so that we can repeal the current EU-based procurement regulations and make our own. It is time to do that. After the UK’s exit from the EU, we should have the scope to create new home-grown procedures, select suppliers and award contracts. That will also allow for the advancement of smaller businesses. My constituency has many small businesses; it has some large ones as well, but there are a larger number, percentage-wise, of smaller businesses. They are the backbone of my constituency of Strangford and of the economy. I look forward to learning about the opportunities for us to do all that we can to ensure that this great nation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, progresses together in the way that it should.

10:06

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you for chairing this meeting so admirably this morning, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on securing the debate. I also thank all those who have spoken for having such easy-to-pronounce constituency names. I very much appreciate that none of them is a mouthful; that has worked out very well for me this morning.

I want to talk about a number of things that we are concerned about in the Procurement Bill, and that we are concerned about more generally in how public procurement works. Public procurement is devolved in Scotland; we are able to set our own procurement rules and legislation. None the less, the Bill impacts Scotland. Also, while we are part of this place and while we are part of this United Kingdom, for however short a period of time that may be, we very much want to improve the situation and ensure the utmost levels of fairness and transparency in the public procurement regime, whether or not we continue to be involved in it.

[Hywel Williams]

Of course, Scotland can chart its own course on this matter. Does the hon. Lady share my surprise that the Welsh Government have consented to the UK Government’s legislating on their behalf?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely do. It is disappointing, especially given some of the excellent things that are happening in Wales, particularly around the work of the Future Generations Commissioner and how that is embedded in what the Welsh Government do. To hand that over to Westminster seems a real dereliction of duty, and I am concerned that that is the direction that has been chosen.

The biggest concern that we have about the Procurement Bill is its significant impact on Scotland in relation to devolution and the implementation of trade deals, including the Australia and New Zealand trade deals. We agree that trade deals are reserved. Obviously, we want to be independent, and we will be signing our own trade deals then, but while they are reserved, we agree that that is what the devolution settlement looks like. However, the implementation of trade deals in Scotland touches on devolved areas. We should be able to implement the procurement rules that come out of trade deals ourselves. The Procurement Bill will allow UK Ministers to implement, through secondary legislation, procurement practices in Scotland, as well as in the rest of the UK. That should be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers, and the UK Government should put that in the Bill rather than reserving that additional power.

[Peter Dowd]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Bill is taking back control to Westminster, not to the places that actually need it?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree. It is a further power grab, just like the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. We have an agreed settlement that was put to a referendum in the first place. We have the Scotland Act 1998, which gives the Scottish Parliament its powers. This is within those powers. It is our responsibility—a responsibility that our parliamentarians in Scotland were elected to carry out—and that the UK Government are trying to take that back means that people in Scotland are not getting what they voted for. They voted for politicians in order to direct this, but their politicians are unable to do so because the UK Parliament is trying to take back control.

Turning to the issues that have been raised today, I will touch first on the EU principles that have been written into the Procurement Bill, which concern transparency, equal treatment, non-discrimination and proportionality. We agree that we should remain as closely aligned with the EU as possible in this regard, and that keeping those principles is absolutely the right thing to do.

[Jon Trickett]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady agrees with those learned commentators who said that EU rules actually preclude the use of procurement to achieve social objectives, and that that was an argument for Brexit rather than for remaining in the European Union.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I think a number of other states have done procurement in a more flexible way even though they are in the European Union. It is not necessarily the case that the way the UK did procurement prior to Brexit is the only way to do procurement within the EU, as a number of states manage to do it very differently. We all have to work within the global procurement agreement. That is part of the World Trade Organisation, which sets rules that, similarly, the EU procurement rules abide by. I am not aware that anybody has suggested that we should step outside that global procurement framework; whether or not they support Brexit, people are still keen to remain part of that.

On transparency and the comments by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) about the kind of ideological shift that is required, I agree that this is ideology. We can do procurement in a number of different ways—we can focus on external companies in the private sector, or we can reframe that and focus on the public sector. We can think about the best way to do it. On the basis that they are trying their very best to defund it, I have concerns about the current UK Government’s willingness to use the public sector, which seems completely ideologically opposed to what they would be keen to achieve. However, I agree that we should go further in that direction, on the basis that we can better implement and embed fair working practices because we have much more control over the terms and conditions of people who are directly employed by local authorities or other public sector bodies and we can be more sure they are employed in a fair way.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned Hikvision, which is involved in the Chinese Government’s detention camps and what is happening with the Uyghur Muslims through its facial recognition technology. Some 61% of UK public authorities use Hikvision cameras. That is not a small number. In Scotland, we have committed to getting rid of Hikvision cameras and ending our work with Hikvision, and the US has blacklisted it. The UK Government still have not chosen to do that, so I would very much welcome a commitment from the Minister that they will look at Hikvision specifically and consider what actions they can take to ensure that they are not supporting a company that is committing human rights abuses. It seems to me that the Procurement Bill fails to take into account some of those abuses, despite pushes by the Lords to make that happen.

Again, climate change issues are not embedded in the Procurement Bill. It does not take into account the climate change targets in Scotland, for example. Every Government should be focused on the impact that every single thing that they do will have on the climate, and on future generations as a result of the climate change it will cause. The UK Government should be leading by example by having that thread running through everything thing they do, but they refuse to. There is no point in just talking about climate change; we need to make sure that we are focusing on it in every single thing that we do. The UK Government are failing to put actions in place; they are only using words.

I am aware that I am short on time, so let me briefly mention the Supplier Development Programme in Scotland, an amazing organisation that was set up to ensure that local companies are linked with public sector procurers. It works incredibly well, so I just wanted to plug it briefly. I thank the hon. Member for Birkenhead for bringing forward the debate, and I thank all those who have made contributions.

10:15

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), who not only managed to sit through Second Reading of the Procurement Bill, but clearly came out thinking he wanted more. Who can blame him? He spoke passionately about the importance of the wider social and economic considerations. He also highlighted the need for procurement to help promote British businesses and invest in places such as his constituency.

I also thank other Members, who have spoken with a lot of knowledge on this issue. On the face of it, it can seem quite dry and clunky, but it is important, as all Members have highlighted. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) mentioned that almost £300 billion is spent on procurement, yet the OECD has highlighted concerns about fraud or corruption in many areas. It is important that we look at which companies are getting contracts and ensure that enough procurement officers are reviewing them. How about we insource instead of outsource, and work with local councils to get those contracts? I am pleased that many local authorities, including mine in Lambeth, are looking at insourcing.

It is always a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in these debates. He spoke with a lot of passion about some of the things happening in Northern Ireland. As a former London Assembly member and chair of its transport committee, I know that Wrightbus is doing fantastic work to produce buses that are going up and down London. Last year, the Mayor of London went to County Antrim to visit the Wrightbus depot and look at more buses coming on to London streets. That is why it is important to invest in local UK businesses that help the whole of the UK.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) highlighted the glaring omission that we are seeing from this Government. Climate change must be front and centre of everything that we do. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth and I had the honour of meeting some fantastic young people who had come to see my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) about the Climate Education Bill. It is so important that we teach our young people, who are so passionate about the climate emergency, yet we are seeing an omission here.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Lady will recall that I mentioned the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Bill, which is focused on achieving some socially responsible outcomes. Does she share my concern that the aims of that Bill might be in conflict with the Government’s current legislation, which is—as far as I can see—much more concerned with process?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) highlighted, key issues were raised in the other place that now seem to have disappeared from the Bill. That is one of those many areas, and I will come on to it later.

We have heard that procurement makes up around a third of public spending. If it is done right, procurement can have such a transformative impact on our whole economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead highlighted that social value should not just be an empty phrase. Social Enterprise UK found that between 2010 and 2020, the UK may have missed out on £700 billion-worth of economic, social and environmental opportunities. We are missing out on so much. That is a staggering amount of money. It is crucial that we address some of the problems in the Procurement Bill as it passes through the House.

As I mentioned on Second Reading, Labour supports the introduction of the Bill and recognises the genuine steps forward that it takes. That is why we want to work constructively with the Government to produce a Bill that is fit not just for today, but for the next Government and the Government after that. The Minister has heard my concerns about the Bill a number of times—we have sat through urgent questions and Second Reading—and we will be spending the new few weeks in Committee, which I am sure he is looking forward to, but I want to raise some of the problems that we see with it. I hope that he will think carefully before tomorrow’s deadline for tabling amendments and look at how he can make genuine improvements to the Bill. I am sure that he has had the chance to look at the amendment paper and that none of our concerns are novel to him, so I hope that he will be able to provide full and frank answers to the House on the issues that I raise.

First, I have deep concerns about the workings of the excluded, excludable and debarment systems in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth highlighted the practice of companies winning contracts and then doing down staff wages. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) highlighted the CCTV cameras that councils are sourcing from Hikvision and the fact that we should be worried about some of the companies we are seeking contracts for. Labour is clear that we do not want to see those who act improperly, who abuse their workers or who are a threat to this country being awarded public contracts.

We therefore welcome the purpose of the powers in the Bill, but we can see loopholes in the system, which must be closed while the Bill is before the House. It is concerning that references to excludable contracts seem to give the contracting authorities discretion about whether to disregard a tender. Can the Minister please explain why excludable suppliers are not automatically disregarded in the same way as excluded suppliers?

While I understand that there may be some need for flexibility on discretion grounds, there is no mechanism in the Bill to decide where that flexibility should stand. That is extremely troubling given that grounds as serious as national security can be discretionary—that is outrageous. Can the Minister assure us that companies that are considered national threats will be excluded from contracts under the Bill? Will he ensure that contracting authorities will never be able to bypass this judgment and not disregard such suppliers during the process?

A similar problem exists with the debarment list. In his letter to Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 4 August, the Minister in the other place, Lord True, wrote that

“the debarment list is intended to focus on the most serious cases of supplier misconduct, where suppliers may pose a significant risk to contracting authorities or the public. It is not the case that every supplier which meets a ground for exclusion will be considered for inclusion on the debarment list. Rather, there will be a prioritisation policy which governs how cases are selected for investigation. It is likely that only a small number of cases will be considered each year.”

However, the Bill outlines no such qualification for ascension to the debarment list. As it is currently drafted, the only firm qualifications beyond the Minister’s wishes are mandatory and discretionary grounds for exclusion. Given the merry-go-round of Ministers we have seen over the past year, does the Minister not believe that it is right to put a mechanism in the Bill to provide clarity about the scope of the debarment list?

Will the Minister confirm that the Government’s intention for the debarment list is as Lord True laid out in his letter to Baroness Neville-Rolfe? If only the most serious cases of misconduct go on the debarment list, how can it be fair that those put on the list for discretionary reasons are still treated as excludable suppliers? If the Minister believes that a supplier poses a significant risk to the public, that supplier must be disregarded automatically from the process as an excluded supplier.

I have a further concern about the 30-day payment period down the supply chain. On Second Reading, the Paymaster General said that

“we will be paying the prime contractor within the 30-day period. People in the supply chain will be aware of the contract under which they are supplying to the prime, and we expect that 30-day payment to trickle all the way down”.—[Official Report, 9 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 347.]

Many small and medium-sized enterprises in all our constituencies rely on prompt payment to keep afloat; they cannot rely on expectations of a trickle-down effect. The Minister may say that it will call into doubt the contract of the prime supplier, but how long will this take?

[Jon Trickett]

My hon. Friend is making a strong speech, although I wish her good luck if she is trying to persuade this ideologically driven Government to change their course. She may recall that three Prime Ministers ago—not so long ago in weeks or months, but some time ago in politics—the then Prime Minister advocated Brexit on two grounds: state aid to industry and procurement. Does my hon. Friend think the Government’s procurement policies are doing anything to level up the country socially, economically or otherwise?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that. I think again of the example of Scotland, where procurement issues are being decided at the whim of Ministers. If anything, that is not levelling up; it is levelling down. We need a Procurement Bill that highlights and recognises small and medium-sized businesses, which often do fantastic work, ensure that their staff have good terms and conditions, and recognise trade unions. They should be given a fair chance at bidding for Government contracts paid for by public money, as my hon. Friend highlighted earlier.

Given how long colleagues on both sides of the House have to wait for responses from the Government, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that instances of late payment reported to the Government are dealt with promptly? In many cases, that could be the difference for an SME that stops it going under and having to hand redundancy notices to its staff. Does the Minister agree that putting strong enforcement down the supply chain in the Bill is the best way to guarantee that no supplier goes without the vital funds that it needs?

The Minister has heard many concerns this morning and I hope he will respond to all our pressing questions. Of course, I will be picking up many of these issues again in Committee.

10:27

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship for the first time, Ms McVey.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on securing the debate. As the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), has already said, it is nice to have the opportunity to debate the issues with the hon. Gentleman again. I am looking forward to the next three weeks in Committee, discussing the Procurement Bill with colleagues from all parties, and to the Report stage that will follow. It is right that we debate these issues thoroughly. The Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that the Government believe will bring real benefits to public authorities, public services and ultimately to the taxpayer. These are things to celebrate.

The hon. Member for Birkenhead’s constituents voted, like mine, to leave the European Union in 2016, and the Bill is one of the landmark pieces of legislation that enables us to take advantage of freedoms that we simply did not have when we were in the EU. The response to the public consultation on the Bill showed the strength of feeling among public authorities and suppliers for change. I am pleased to say that we have developed a sophisticated piece of legislation that is rising up to meet the asks of us made by those who responded to the consultation.

We have about £300 billion of public procurement in this country. That represents a huge amount of taxpayers’ money—public money—that we think can be spent better for people at all levels. We see a chance to reduce paperwork, streamline processes, improve opportunities for SMEs, which I know is close to the hon. Member for Birkenhead’s heart and is close to mine because it is the backbone of the economy in my part of the world, and to introduce new ways of viewing procurement.

As Members will have heard me say on Second Reading, it is a shift from MEAT to MAT—from the most economically advantageous tender to the most advantageous tender. That gives public authorities a freer hand to make an assessment about whether procurement decisions will create jobs in their area, benefit the environment or create any other forms of social good that are not purely economically measured. We think this is a major step forward, and I hope he agrees.

I am afraid I cannot speak in detail about the ferry contract in the hon. Gentleman’s area, but the work we are doing on the Procurement Bill is intended to make it easier for procuring authorities to make decisions that are not based purely on money. It will enable them to look at local need and things such as jobs.

Shipbuilding is covered by our World Trade Organisation commitments, so we would struggle to confine shipbuilding contracts to British-only suppliers unless we left the WTO. That would, of course, deprive British companies of the opportunity to take advantage of the procurement agreements within that framework, which are worth about £1.2 trillion. I cannot comment on the exact specifics of the hon. Gentleman’s case in Merseyside, but there are limits to what we can do within the WTO.

[Mick Whitley]

I think it was three Prime Ministers ago when the Prime Minister came to Birkenhead and announced the 50-year plan for shipping. The Ministry of Defence awarded a contract to build fleet supply boats, and colleagues from Northern Ireland and Devon won it, but as soon as they did that there was a debate in the House about what kind of company Navantia was. It was registered in the UK earlier this year and its two directors come from Spain, and the majority of the work on the fleet supply boats will get done in Cadiz. That is public money; that is what we are talking about. We are talking about levelling up the left-behind towns, but that has been totally ignored.

[Alex Burghart]

If the hon. Gentleman is talking about fleet solid support ships, they are built to a British design. There is a huge amount of construction in Belfast and Appledore—the final assembly is completed in Belfast—bringing shipbuilding back to Northern Ireland. This is an enormous opportunity for levelling up and bringing jobs into exactly the sort of shipyards around the country that I am sure the hon. Gentleman wants to see benefit, so I do not quite recognise all the allegations he has made.

[Peter Dowd]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Burghart]

I am happy to give way to my old adversary from Bootle.

[Peter Dowd]

One of the issues that I am trying to tease out is that even when we were in the European Union—I know this, the Minister knows this, and so does everybody in this Chamber—those countries had an imaginative approach to public procurement, and we did not. Even under those rules, we had a less imaginative approach. Even under the provisions that the Government are bringing forward, they cannot move away from the anal retention and enable us to take a much more imaginative approach to procurement. What in the Bill is more imaginative and will enable us to do what we want and we were promised when we were coming out of Europe?

[Alex Burghart]

I blush to quote the hon. Gentleman back at him, but there is a lot less of the form of retention that he describes in this Bill than he would have found in the existing European rules. As he heard me say to the hon. Member for Birkenhead, the system is moving from MEAT to MAT. This is a broader understanding of what public authorities can choose to do when they procure goods and services, and that is a really good thing.

The hon. Members for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and for Birkenhead talked about buying British. This Bill will help, but we start from a strong position: between 2016 and 2019, 98% of contracts given out by public authorities in the UK went to British firms. In the Bill, we are making it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises, the majority of which are likely to be in the vicinity of public body procuring, to access contracts from public authorities. We are making it much more likely that there will be more jobs and more opportunities for growing businesses. That is very exciting and one of the most appealing things about the Bill. My noble Friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe wrote a good piece for The Times showing how we are removing barriers to engagement for SMEs in a meaningful way. She has vast experience in business and was able to shine a light on that.

Let me turn to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who talked about insourcing and outsourcing, and the need for an ideological shift. I hope he will not mind me reminding the House that he entered the Commons in 1996 and supported one of the great outsourcing Governments—that of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. It is so interesting to see the hon. Gentleman’s ideological shift since that time.

I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that public authorities absolutely have the freedom to insource if they think that is the best thing to do. The important thing is that they have the choice, and I hope he would not want to deprive local authorities and local councils of that choice. Maybe he would.

[Florence Eshalomi]

On that particular point, does the Minister recognise the issue highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), which is that a number of our local councils and public bodies have seen their funding cut over the past 13 years? The procurement teams that would be looking at bringing contracts back in house have shrunk, and a number of councils face difficult decisions—do they fund social workers or fund procurement officers? It is not as simple as saying councils have the freedom to insource.

[Alex Burghart]

I hesitate to remind the hon. Lady why funding for local authorities was reduced, but it had something to do with the behaviour of the Labour Government up to 2010. We all remember the letter that Labour’s Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), left for his Lib Dem successor.

The fact of the matter is that we have highly capable local authorities across the country that manage public contracts very well and which have worked with us in the construction of the Bill to ensure they have a legal framework that helps them make the decisions they want. I have no desire at all to talk them down. I have seen their capabilities up close, and I know that they are looking forward to taking advantage of the powers they will get from the Bill.

I would also very, very gently say this to the hon. Member for Hemsworth. I know that this is political knockabout, but the statements he made about PPE procurement could have been taken to insinuate that Ministers made the awarding decisions. That is absolutely not the case. Those decisions—

[Jon Trickett]

Says you.

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman heckles me with a smile on his face, but the fact is that those decisions were made by highly capable and competent civil servants whose decisions have been upheld in court. It is wrong to suggest that they were in any way corrupt when they were trying to serve the country at a time of utter crisis in order to get, as every Member of the House wanted, as much PPE as possible when the NHS needed it most. I have listened on a number of occasions to Opposition Members speaking in such a way that suggests that Ministers handed out the contracts. That is not the case, and it would be much better for the public discourse if Opposition Members did not suggest to members of the public that that had been so.

Let me move on to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It has been a pleasure to be able to work on the Bill with people in Northern Ireland, and the Bill is stronger as a result. We look forward to businesses of all sizes in England and Northern Ireland, and in Wales, benefiting from the new procurement legislation.

The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) chastised the Welsh Government for allowing Westminster to legislate for them. Me and my officials have had the most productive working with the Welsh Government and these mischaracterisations imply that this is Westminster telling Wales what to do. This has been a partnership between Westminster and Cardiff and between Westminster and Belfast. It is a wonderful example of nations working together.

[Hywel Williams]

The Minister will know better than I that the Welsh Government are yet to recommend that the Senedd grants consent to the Procurement Bill due to two outstanding issues. The first is the presence of concurrent, rather than concurrent-plus powers. Concurrent- plus powers mean that both legislatures give their consent. The second is the lack of commencement powers for Welsh Ministers. Will the Minister give me an update on any progress on those two points?

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman will get a final answer in Committee, but I can tell him that we have had nothing but productive and courteous conversations with our counterparts. I believe that we are going to end up in a mutually beneficial place, which is great news for people in Wales, England and Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman can join us in Committee if he wishes to hear the final read out on that. I look forward to seeing him there.

The hon. Member for Strangford is right: Northern Ireland must be included in these important opportunities. We are sad that our colleagues in Scotland have, unlike counterparts in Wales and Northern Ireland, not chosen to be part of the Procurement Bill. They are entitled to make that decision, but it is a shame. It adds a layer of complexity within the British Isles that need not be there, but c’est la vie.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) asked about trade deals and implementation. Trade deals are a reserved area. It is important that they are able to be implemented because otherwise we might find that the UK was in breach of an international agreement and that would be wrong. Yesterday, we made an amendment following discussions with the Scottish Government to narrow powers in this area and we will continue to work closely with them on implementation and, likewise, I look forward to discussing it with her in Committee; I do believe it will be her in Committee.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It will indeed.

[Alex Burghart]

Hooray.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the Minister. I have not seen that amendment, so I will have a good look at it. I appreciate that he has taken some action.

[Alex Burghart]

Super. I look forward to debating that further in the weeks ahead.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Vauxhall, rightly highlighted that debarment is a crucial area of the Bill. In the past few days, we have tabled new amendments on debarment, which strengthen the regime. I am not going to go into all the details now because there is ample opportunity in the days ahead, but she is right to draw attention to it. On subcontractors and 30-day payments, there are implied payment terms within the Bill. Even if it is not a subcontract, the SME can demand this and raise it. Again, we could go into further details, but we have thought through the point she raised.

In conclusion, this is a great opportunity. We have come a long way from the starting point that we found ourselves in when we were in the EU. We are starting to make British procurement rules that will benefit British taxpayers, British employees, British public authorities and British suppliers. That is a good thing for all of us.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I call Mick Whitley to wind up.

10:44

[Mick Whitley]

Thank you, Ms McVey. I thank Members for their thoughtful and varied contributions. I let the Minister know that I will soon be joining colleagues to scrutinise the Procurement Bill in Committee. Today’s discussions have given me much to reflect on.

I am particularly grateful to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for the passion and clarity with which she spoke today. I have already paid tribute to Labour peers and friends in the House for their hard work in fighting to amend the Bill for the better. It is welcome to hear the shadow Minister restate our party’s commitment to ensure that public money is put back into the pockets of working people and communities, such as Birkenhead, through our five-point national procurement plan.

I thank the Minister for attending and hope he recognises what has been said here today. In the short time available to us, my hon. Friends and I have attempted to highlight the real-world implications of the decisions being made in this place. I hope that the Government will seek to work constructively with colleagues from across the House in building a progressive procurement regime that helps to lay the foundations of a fairer, greener and more prosperous Britain.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered reform of public procurement processes.

10:46

Sitting suspended.

Cryptocurrency Regulation

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I will call Dr Lisa Cameron to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up,.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regulation of cryptocurrency.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms McVey. As Chair of the crypto and digital assets all-party parliamentary group, I am delighted to be able to raise this important sector of innovation. I thank the Minister for taking the time to respond today.

This is not the first time that cryptoassets have been debated in the House of Commons. Over the last 12 months, there has rightly been increased interest in the growth of the sector from the media and from colleagues in all parties across this House and the House of Lords. I am pleased by the increased interest, particularly in the work that we have been doing to bring ourselves up to speed with the sector. We have found that millions of people in the United Kingdom already own some form of cryptocurrency, yet there has not been as much discussion about it as was needed, particularly in terms of regulation.

Regulators around the world are now racing to develop their own frameworks for crypto. Recently, the European Union developed its markets in cryptoassets regulation—MiCA—and I look forward to hearing more about that with the all-party parliamentary group in the months to come. Whether people voted for Brexit and agree with it or not, it is where we are, and the UK has an opportunity to create its own bespoke regulatory framework for cryptocurrency.

Recent events, such as the collapse of the crypto exchange FTX, have focused minds and highlighted the importance of ensuring that consumer protection is at the heart of everything that we do. My own journey into this space started when a constituent said to me, “Who do I contact in Parliament? I have been following a scam online linked with cryptocurrency.” When I looked into what was happening at that point, there was no all-party parliamentary group on the subject and I was not sure where to direct my constituent, so, leading on from constituents’ concerns, we set one up. It is vital, given what has happened this year, that regulation and a framework are taken forward at pace.

The UK already has a rich legacy and strong track record as a leader in financial services and fintech, so there is huge potential here for economic growth, jobs and skills from the sector. As the mum of a 14-year-old who is choosing her subjects at school, I have been looking at reports on jobs for the future. She thought that, given our family’s history in medicine and pharmacy and so on, I would encourage her to become a doctor, but I said, “Coding is the way ahead for you.” She was shocked by that. Young people are already doing a lot of this in school—it comes very naturally to younger generations.

I have researched the subject and think that the jobs of the future will be placed firmly in science, technology, engineering and maths activity, and in the finance sector, too. In future, digital, health and tech will be across all sectors, and I am enthused by that. It would be good if the Minister and Cabinet colleagues identified the centres of excellence at college and university levels so that young people know where to go, and where the gaps are. That would ensure that we level up opportunities right across the United Kingdom for people who want to have a future in development and innovation in the sector.

We already have some fantastic examples of innovative companies in the UK, not just in London but in Scotland and elsewhere, creating jobs and development opportunities. In terms of international practice, I had the privilege to speak with Alex Bornyakov, Ukraine’s Deputy Minister of Digital Transformation, who told me that cryptocurrency had been essential to Ukraine’s ability to respond to the Russian invasion. It is right that we place consumer protection, regulation and robust regulatory frameworks at the heart of everything that we do, but we should also look to the sector’s potential to solve some of the issues that countries will face and some of the difficulties across the world just now.

It has been almost a year since the Government set out their landmark vision to make the UK a global hub for crypto investment. The Minister will be aware that I have been very supportive of the Government’s vision, and I am keen to work constructively with him to ensure that it becomes a reality. The Government’s announcement is welcome for business, because good actors want regulation. I was not sure about that when I started looking into the sector with the all-party parliamentary group. From media and things I had read, I thought it was very much a wild west, where people did not want structure or regulatory frameworks; but there are many good actors who do want those things, and investors need regulatory frameworks to take forward their work in the sector with confidence. Business certainty supports a fair and transparent market. There must never be a race to the bottom in the UK, and I urge the Government to take forward the regulatory framework at pace, because we need to protect consumers first and foremost in all that we do. Regulatory clarity and business certainty are at the core of that work.

Over the past year members of the all-party parliamentary group have very much been educating ourselves, and I include myself in that. One has to do a lot of reading about the sector to understand acronyms and so on. We spent a lot of time even understanding that, when people spoke about fiat, they were speaking not about a type of car but about money. We have upskilled ourselves, which is a great first step. When I spoke with Members of the Swiss Parliament, they said that they had been on a similar journey; upskilling across their chambers meant that they could engage much more effectively on “what works” legislation.

Over the past year, industry has raised with me a number of barriers, which I will set out to help the Minister and support the work he is taking forward. First, significant delays are still being reported by business operators seeking registration with the Financial Conduct Authority. Will the Minister update us on progress in that area, and on the number of firms that have been granted licences in the UK since the creation of the licensing regime for crypto firms?

We have also heard real frustration about lack of communication. Some companies are not certain about what is required of them; they are being left for months on end with no response to tell them whether anything further is needed, whether their application is in process, or whether they need to take additional steps. I have met with the FCA on a few occasions and learned of their CryptoSprint event last year, which brought together industry and regulators to look at a number of areas, including how to protect consumers and markets while supporting innovation. I felt that that was a real step in the right direction, but could more be done to take this work forward?

Will the Minister update the House on the average FCA processing times for crypto registrations? I fully understand if he is unable to do so today, but it would be helpful if he wrote to me with that information. The FCA reassured me that it was employing more people to work in its department dealing with this specific sector, given the public interest in and engagement with cryptocurrency. It needs that expertise and wants to move forward at a greater pace.

It would also be helpful to know what more the FCA has planned to foster sustained and meaningful engagement with the sector. I have spoken to businesses that have such a bond with the UK—businesses that have been here and that want to set up here, and whose representatives have been to university here and feel that the UK is the place to be. Regrettably, because of the delays and lack of engagement, some have gone to Paris, while others have gone to Zug in Switzerland and elsewhere. That is a great shame if they are good actors and want to support the United Kingdom economy.

The all-party parliamentary group is undertaking an inquiry. We have heard about opportunities for the sector from businesses and regulators, and from those in overseas territories. I have noticed the importance of engagement between Government, regulators and the sector to ensure that the policy developed is practical and fit for purpose. Members of Parliament in Switzerland told us about the value of thinking about the different pillars of the sector—not just finance but research, university development and innovation hubs—and about bringing them all together with companies, regulators and Government to ensure that there are opportunities and a robust framework.

When we talk about the future of cryptocurrency regulation and what it might look like, it is imperative that everybody works together in the same direction to get it right. That has to be the case for consumer protection, which is the reason I became interested in this area in the first place and is at the core of everything that we are trying to do. At times, there has appeared to be a disconnect between the Government’s vision and some of the statements made by the banking industry and so on. How is the Minister pulling that together so that everyone is moving ahead in tandem? Yes, concerns are being raised and addressed as we go, but we need to ensure that people are moving in the same direction, rather than pulling in different directions away from the vision of the UK cryptocurrency hub set out so meaningfully by the Prime Minister.

We need a proportionate approach to regulation that balances risk and ensures high levels of consumer protection, but does not unnecessarily restrict growth or innovation for our future. That should be built on a strong evidence base to ensure that sound decisions are made. I recently heard from a number of economic crime experts at Elliptic, Chainalysis and the Royal United Services Institute; they indicated to our inquiry that crypto-related crime still accounts for quite a small percentage of overall crypto transactions, and that economic crime remains a challenge for financial services as a whole. Cryptocurrency is a part of that, but the focus is not just on that sector.

I have written to the FCA and the Bank of England to get further information. In recent statements, the incoming chair of the FCA has said that crypto platforms are “deliberately evasive”, facilitate money laundering on a large scale and create “massively untoward risk”. The Governor of the Bank of England said that cryptocurrencies are the new frontline in criminal scams and have created an

“opportunity for the downright criminal”.

Of course, these issues must be addressed, but that has to be balanced with the evidence to ensure proportionality. That is why it is even more important that Government regulators and industry come together to move things forward in a way that is meaningful and that everyone can agree on.

Another potential barrier is the recent announcements by leading banks to limit or block cryptocurrency transactions. I have written to them to tease out a little more information. Nationwide, Starling Bank, Santander and Virgin Money are among a number of banks that have announced limits and restrictions on transactions. Starling Bank has claimed that crypto exchanges are

“high risk, and heavily used for criminal purposes”,

which is a real concern. Other banks, such as Revolut and Monzo, are said to be open to crypto and largely positive towards cryptocurrency transactions. Again, the divergence of views within the sector should be grounded in evidence and be addressed in a way that protects consumers and puts them at the heart of what we do.

On the timeline for the Government’s plans, I have been speaking with many members of other Parliaments and businesses that operate internationally, because this is an international issue and hopefully there will be guidance internationally that we can come together on. If we want to harness the UK’s position at the forefront of this industry, we need to move at pace while ensuring that the work we do is robust.

I reassure the Minister that the all-party parliamentary group will continue to advocate for the UK cryptocurrency hub set out in the vision, and work in conjunction with his office. We will be extremely pleased if he updates the House on timescales for the year ahead and how he sees this playing out, so that we can continue to work constructively to support everything he is doing to protect consumers, while harnessing the innovation of cryptocurrency for the future in the United Kingdom.

11:12

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing this debate on crypto regulation, which follows the first debate on cryptoassets, led by her fellow party member the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) in September last year. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that this is an important sector for innovation, and I commend her and the crypto and digital assets all-party parliamentary group for their work to upskill Members of this House in this important emerging area.

My goal is simple: we want the UK to be the home of an open, well regulated and technologically advanced sector. As the hon. Lady said, recent events have highlighted some vulnerabilities in the cryptoassets sector, but it is a big sector. We have seen how FTX’s collapse has impacted some consumers, but as with any emerging technology—and this technology is at an emerging stage for all its myriad potential uses—there will be risk. We understand the importance of risk in the system and that, regrettably, that brings failures as much as success and opportunity. That is part of the process of change itself.

The hon. Lady talked about how cryptocurrencies could be an area of Brexit opportunity, and because we have taken back control of our rulebook, this House—importantly—has the opportunity as well as the obligation to bring forward regulations. In that context, she talked about being the mum of a 14-year-old, all the potential jobs and the advice that she would give. Clearly, this is a world that has captured the imagination of young people. Anything we can do to get our young people to equip themselves with more STEM skills is very positive.

The hon. Lady also talked about the positive benefits in a sector in which, owing to its nature as a nascent and emerging sector, people are not always clear about its use cases. She made a powerful point about the use case in Ukraine and allowing that financial system to continue to work. Government policy is that we will introduce timely, sensible and balanced regulation to allow the safe use of the technology and allow participants in the sector to understand with certainty the environment in which they operate.

On the potential economy, the hon. Lady might be familiar with the work done by PricewaterhouseCoopers that estimates that blockchain technology, which underlies what is often referred to as crypto, could boost the UK economy by £57 billion by 2030. That is a sizeable opportunity and we are keen for the UK to seize its fair share. She talked about other jurisdictions that have introduced regulation, and it is right that we learn from them and use the opportunity to perfect our own regulation, but obviously we must ensure that we capture—if that is the right word—a fair share of the opportunities.

The fintech sector is a great success story for both the City of London and the wider UK economy, and last year the UK attracted more fintech investment than the next 13 European countries combined, so we have a real lead. Natural extensions of that sector are crypto firms and cryptoassets—people working with blockchain. It is important, therefore, that the regulations we introduce facilitate that.

The hon. Lady rightly raised the role of our regulators and their speed and agility. I will write to her, but will share now the figures that I have. I understand from the Financial Conduct Authority that 41 such firms are registered in the UK. Obviously, the FCA has its own regulations around that—the hurdles that firms have to clear—and I am interested in general, as we seek to have an agile and proportionate financial regulatory system, in our regulators moving at the right pace.

There are measures in the Financial Services and Markets Bill more generally to encourage the regulators—indeed, to compel them—to be more transparent about their key operating statistics, such as those in respect of speed. I think the hon. Lady talked about the number of authorisations and the average processing time for authorisations, which I hear about widely across the financial services sector and know is a focus for the FCA. It is important that it is: we cannot have a financial system that is competitive internationally if it has a slow latency and if it does not operate at speed. I share the hon. Lady’s concern, and if there are any additional measures I can obtain, I will of course write to her.

The hon. Lady talked about the importance of engagement between Ministers and the sector. I want to assure her that during my relatively short time in this role I have held a desire for broad and deep engagement. This is a really big sector. She might be interested to know that rather than having a standing council, as it were—Governments sometimes set up a group of 12 anointed figures and all the engagement is there—I want to be much more agile and to engage with a much broader range of people. My undertaking is to have six roundtables with the sector, but with a variety of sector participants, during calendar year 2023. That will build on the three roundtables that I have already held with the sector in the first few months since my appointment. That is a real commitment; this area rewards a lot of time being spent on it.

I assure the hon. Lady, members of the all-party group and industry bodies that I want to take an evidence-based and proportionate approach to regulation. That is something to which we all aspire. It is not helpful in any domain for people to make sweeping statements without offering facts and proof.

I hope I have addressed most of the hon. Lady’s points. There is one final point on which I wish to offer clarity: where we go from here. I do not have the precise date, but I assure the hon. Lady that the Government will very soon come forward with our consultation paper on the regulatory approach to cryptoassets. That will be a matter of weeks, not months, but I do not have the precise date. I urge people to get ready to respond to that paper. We will engage on the back of it, because it is of course just the next step in the process. The purpose of the consultation is that we have proportionate regulation, that we do it right and that it is practitioner led.

Of course, the flipside is that consultative processes sometimes makes things take a little longer than one might wish in a fast-moving domain. In order to get the balance right, I urge those with views to be ready to advocate them. They should be assured that they have a Minister and a Government who are keen to see the sector grow and to harness the benefits for the United Kingdom and the hon. Lady’s constituents. I would be delighted to return to update this place frequently on the progress of this exciting new sector.

Question put and agreed to.

11:22

Sitting suspended.

Steel Industry: Contribution to the UK Economy

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard in the Chair]

10:24

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the contribution of the steel industry to the UK economy.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and to lead today’s debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), a Welsh Labour colleague, secured the debate and was due to lead it, but he has been waylaid by his Front-Bench duties on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. He is an excellent chair of the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metal related industries. He represents the UK’s biggest steelworks—in Port Talbot—and I know that he will take a keen interest in today’s debate and wishes that he was here. Before I begin, I declare an interest: I am a member of the Community and GMB trade unions, both of which represent steelworkers in my constituency so ably, as does Unite. I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I am incredibly proud to represent a steel constituency; for well over a century, the industry has been at the heart of the communities that I serve, and of constituencies represented by Members present. It is good to see interest from Members on both sides of the House. The contribution of the steel industry to the UK economy is the title of the debate, but the immense contribution of this vital strategic industry is, in a sense, undebatable. Our steel sector employs 34,500 people directly in the UK and supports a further 43,000 in supply chains. Steel salaries are 45% higher than the UK national average and 59% higher than the regional median in Wales, Yorkshire and Humberside. It goes without saying, then, that the steel industry should be at the heart of any levelling-up agenda worth the paper it is written on.

The workforce is a winning combination of highly skilled, experienced workers who have honed their expertise over decades of dedicated work, and a healthy influx of younger steelworkers eager to work in an industry that is at the cutting edge of innovation. Even in the face of the considerable challenges that the industry faces, which I will talk about today, steel still has enormous pulling power for young workers who are looking to build up skills that will last them a lifetime. That is clear to see at Tata’s Llanwern steelworks in my constituency, where the average age of the workforce has fallen from 53 to 32 in recent years. There is a new generation of workers who, like so many before them, are hugely proud to be steelworkers. We must look after them.

Directly and through supply chains, the steel sector adds £5.5 billion to UK GDP and makes a £2.4 billion direct contribution to the UK’s balance of trade. It underpins our entire manufacturing base, and steel is an essential material for the construction, energy, aerospace, defence, engineering and packaging sectors. Some 96% of Network Rail’s steel is sourced from British Steel in Scunthorpe; 250,000 tonnes of steel from Celsa in Cardiff will support the building of Hinkley C nuclear power station; and Liberty Steel produces critical parts for aircraft engines and wind turbine gears. Nearly all 1p, 2p, 5p and 10p coins originate from steel made at Tata in Port Talbot, and Tata Llanwern produces world-class automotive steel for the likes of Jaguar Land Rover and BMW.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She rightly mentions the Celsa plant in my constituency and the critical role that steel plays in so many of our industries and in manufacturing. Does she share my frustration that we seem to have been going round the houses for the last 10 years, particularly on the critical issue of competitive energy pricing? We have seen something like 12 steel Ministers during that time. That is not to disparage the current Minister, whom I like immensely on a personal level, but we need consistency and action on the critical issue of energy prices.

[Jessica Morden]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is a champion for steel in his constituency, where Celsa is based. I wholeheartedly agree that we have been going on about energy prices for so long—it is a theme that I will come to later in my speech—and I thank him for his contribution.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

First, I apologise for being a minute late. My hon. Friend’s last point is crucial. All these pots of money that are available are obviously welcome, but for Shotton and the whole steel industry, we need a long-term plan with long-term investment. There is a lot of talk about companies investing, but they will invest only if they can see a future, and if all we are doing all the time is just buying a bit of time here and there, until steel drops out of the news again, that is not a plan. We really need a long-term plan.

[Jessica Morden]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Yet again, I agree wholeheartedly with him. He is a fantastic advocate for Shotton, and he is exactly right: we need a long-term plan for steel.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous with her time. She made the very important point a few moments ago that steel is at the heart of many of our growth industries. Does she agree that a growth industry for the future is green energy, and that whether we are talking about floating offshore wind or other forms of marine renewables, steel will be at the heart of them? To that end, does she welcome the agreement struck between RWE and Tata to explore the use of Welsh steel in the nascent floating offshore wind industry? Does she also agree that we need Government to be part of the discussion of how we support the growth of new green industries and ensure that British-made steel is at the heart of them?

[Jessica Morden]

I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I wholeheartedly agree; I am agreeing with all the interventions! He anticipates my next point, because I was about to say that steel will be integral part of the UK’s journey to reach net zero. Without a thriving steel industry, there can be no transition to a low-carbon economy that supports a range of industries, from automotive to nuclear and renewables, which he mentioned.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very kind in taking interventions. There have been suggestions that a closed-loop cycle could be created in south Wales, whereby floating offshore wind is used not only for electricity but to make green hydrogen for heavy industry in the area, including, of course, steel production. Contracts for difference could be used to support such a relationship. Will she join me in asking the Minister to clarify how the contracts for difference scheme could be adjusted, so that it supports renewable energy hubs that use multiple technologies, and to assess how such projects could be linked? The important words there are “multiple technologies”.

[Jessica Morden]

I thank the right hon. Member for that very important intervention. She gave an example, as did the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), of how we can use our steel in these projects, and I hope that the Minister will refer directly to that point when she responds to the debate.

These interventions prove that we simply cannot decarbonise the economy without decarbonising steel. As Tata has highlighted, almost every aspect of the UK’s decarbonisation plan is steel-intensive, with 10 million tonnes of steel being required over the coming years for offshore wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen, and carbon capture and utilisation storage projects. The “Britain, we need our steel” campaign was launched by the Community trade union and union partners in 2020. It is not just a slogan; it is a statement of fact.

Today’s debate comes in the context of the recent worrying news from Liberty Steel, which has announced that it will idle its steel plants in my constituency and at the Tredegar site in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith). The primary production plant in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who is also an excellent advocate for steel in her area, and the Performance Steel supplier in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), are among the other sites affected.

In a written response to me last week, the Secretary of State for Wales mentioned that he had spoken to Cabinet colleagues about the situation at Liberty and what it means for the workforce, and said that the Government stood ready to provide support. Any updates on that written response that the Minister can provide would of course be welcome to us and, more importantly, all those working at the plants, who are worried about the future. We must not underestimate the uncertainty that they will feel following the news about Liberty.

Of course Liberty has its specific issues, and the Community union is seeking answers from the company about how the latest announcement squares with previous commitments to invest in the business and ramp up production in Newport, Tredegar and elsewhere. It is clear, however, that there is a wider context, and that Liberty’s announcement again demonstrates the precarious outlook for the steel industry more widely. Indeed, the company specifically cited energy costs as a factor in the decision that it made this month.

The same is true for British Steel in Scunthorpe, which is paying nearly £1 million a day for electricity, the cost of electricity having risen tenfold since 2021. There is still real uncertainty about the situation of British Steel, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), who is here, will speak about that shortly. I hope that the Minister can provide updates. It is imperative that talks between the company and the Government continue, and reach a successful outcome that ensures that steelmaking at Scunthorpe continues and decarbonises.

As Community has highlighted, the cost of Government inaction, in terms of job losses, employment support, and the loss of a vital strategic foundation site, is incalculable. The sky-high energy costs facing the steel sector are by no means a new issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said. It is one that I and other Members representing steelmaking constituencies have raised with 12 different steel Ministers since 2010, including six in the last three years alone. It is difficult to establish a long-term relationship when our steel Ministers change so often. I also like the Minister personally, but I make that point.

Over recent years, Opposition Members will have lost track of the number of times we have had to highlight the energy cost disparity, which remains a blight on the competitiveness of UK steel producers compared with their continental counterparts, particularly those in France and Germany. Indeed, UK Steel research shows that British steel producers paid twice as much for electricity last year as German counterparts, hitting competitiveness.

The UK Government’s response to this over the years can be described as piecemeal at best. The energy bills discount scheme announced by the Treasury earlier this month confirmed that there would be at least a continuation of energy price support for businesses until April 2024, removing fears of a March cliff edge—an uncertainty that the Government allowed to fester through the tail end of last year.

However, it is important to note that the support for energy-intensive industries outlined by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury falls far short of that provided by competitor countries. That is the point. For example, the German Government have guaranteed their steel industry an electricity price of €130 per MWh for 2023. In contrast, the Treasury’s announcement on non-domestic energy support earlier this month provides our steel industry with a discount only to electricity prices higher than £185 per MWh. That means that UK steelmakers will stump up an estimated 63% more than their German counterparts for electricity.

UK Steel has rightly been critical of what the UK Treasury has on offer, saying that its

“reforms significantly narrow the help that Government will provide”,

and that Ministers are

“betting on a calm and stable 2023 energy market, in a climate of unstable global markets, with the scheme no longer protecting against extremely volatile prices.”

For a decade, British steelmakers have continually been asked to compete with one hand tied behind their back. That is why Labour’s £1 billion contingency fund to help energy-intensive industries, such as steel, deal with energy costs is crucial. It goes far further than this Government’s proposals and is vital.

The £800 million toward energy costs that the Minister mentioned in previous meetings is not all for the steel sector. In any case, it is not a new package of support. It relates to a package introduced under the coalition Government between 2013 and 2015, which was pushed largely by the Liberal Democrat-operated Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. In any case, the support referenced is significant less than the £1 billion contingency fund that Labour has suggested.

We need a Government who will support the industry in a move towards decarbonisation. We have read the reports of the £600 million that the Government have pledged, or are reported to have pledged, to Tata and British Steel this week to help with lower-emissions technology. I trust that we will get more details on this from the Minister later. I hope the negotiations continue and progress with urgency, and that any plan to decarbonise will be fully consulted on and agreed with the unions to ensure a just transition for the workforce. However, it is important to note that the support arrived significantly later than the support for other European countries did, and is significant lower. For example, the German Government have already spent €8.5 billion towards greening their domestic steel industry, and the French Government have spent €2.2 billion. British Steel Scunthorpe’s multi-union chair, Paul McBean, put it well in his recent interview with The Yorkshire Post, saying:

“We are the only country being told to go green and (with) no help.”

I look forward to the Minister’s response on that point about the adequacy of what is on offer.

It is clear that the steel sector is committed to the transition to net zero, but needs a long-term policy framework to make that a reality without penalising steelmakers with gargantuan carbon prices in the interim years. As things stand, rising carbon costs are eating into any available capital that steel companies may have to invest in decarbonisation. That is completely counterproductive, and we need the Minister to act on it. That is a key point.

The Government have spoken about a roughly £1.5 billion package of support schemes for the industry. However, it is important to note that those schemes are spread across many industries, so £1.5 billion does not translate into very much direct capital support for the steel sector. In particular, the £1 billion carbon capture, utilisation and storage infrastructure fund is not money provided to steel companies to support CCUS on site, but investment in pipelines and storage that may at some point be used by steel companies—it is far from a certainty. For example, Welsh steel plants will not be using that infrastructure even if they opt for carbon capture, as it is all for the North sea. Let us not forget the £250 million clean steel fund promised by the Government led by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), which disappeared without trace.

Labour’s proposed £3 billion green steel fund represents a potential way forward—not a sticking-plaster emergency bail-out, but a plan to work with industry, investing alongside it over the next 10 years. If this Government will not take action, we will.

I also urge the Minister to look at proposals for a carbon border adjustment mechanism. The costs of the UK’s emissions trading system have spiralled over the past two years. Compliance costs for the sector reached £120 million last year, which is equivalent to 60% of the average annual capital investment of the sector, and are set to get much worse. A carbon border adjustment mechanism would create a level playing field by applying carbon prices at the border equivalent to those faced by domestic producers, ensuring that imported steel does not have a price advantage. The Community union has highlighted that such a mechanism would also support the decarbonisation of steel production, as it would allow steelmakers to produce low-emission steel without being out-competed by high-emission, lower-cost imported steel.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for her generosity in giving way again. I should also put on record my membership of the GMB, and past interests involving the GMB and Community.

On the subject of that transition to green steel, my hon. Friend will know that the Celsa plant uses an electric arc furnace—it is producing green steel from scrap. Does she agree that if we are switching to scrap-made steel, we need to ensure not only that there are adequate supplies of scrap in the UK, but that we do not suddenly all start producing the same product? Celsa predominantly produces rebar; we also need the flats, the sections, and all the other products that the UK currently provides so excellently.

[Jessica Morden]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point—I cannot top it, really. I hope the Minister has heard it.

Procurement policies also need to be updated. For every 1,000 tonnes of steel produced in the UK, 4.2 direct jobs are created, with a further 6.6 jobs created in the supply chain. It is understandable, then, that Make UK found that 68% of the UK public think that public infrastructure projects should prioritise the use of UK-made steel wherever possible, yet the Government have a pretty poor track record in this area. The most recent example was last month’s announcement that a £1.6 billion contract for steel for three fleet solid support vehicles was awarded to a Spanish consortium. That is just one case, but there have been too many missed opportunities for the steel industry. We cannot let that carry on.

As I mentioned earlier, green infrastructure projects will need literally millions of tonnes of steel by the end of the decade. The UK Government’s own steel public procurement pipeline data, released last June, states that offshore wind projects alone will require some 5.3 million tonnes of steel within five years. We need the Government to commit now to maximising the procurement of British steel for all those upcoming projects, a move that Make UK estimates could boost the UK economy by as much as £4 billion and support 11,000 British jobs in steel companies and their supply chains. As the Community union’s general secretary Roy Rickhuss has rightly said,

“The green energy revolution presents a huge opportunity to build a robust British supply chain based on the supply of top-quality domestic steel.”

The events of the past two years tell us that Britain cannot rely on fragile global supply networks for strategic goods, and that if we want to go green, it is nonsensical to transport steel from the other side of the world.

On that point, I welcome that the Government themselves have acknowledged that, in the area of energy supply, the country has

“drifted into dependence on foreign sources”.

We agree, and I echo Roy Rickhuss by calling on Ministers to not make the same mistake when it comes to steel, a sector of such vital strategic importance to our sovereign capability and our national security. Alun Davies, a stalwart of Community in south Wales, puts it succinctly:

“There is a clear choice facing this Government—either they back our workforce and our industries or they choose to offshore thousands of good jobs to other countries.”

[Mark Tami]

The industry really is at a cliff edge. I have said that in meetings. That is not crying wolf; this is not a made-up situation. It really is at the 11th hour. Unless we really step up to the mark and invest, will we lose not only the industry but the confidence of the supply chain and the customers, who will start questioning whether some of these plants will be around this time next year. Something has to change now.

[Jessica Morden]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right: the steel industry is at a particularly precarious point and the purpose of this debate is to highlight to the Minister the need to act quickly.

On procurement, it is high time that the UK Government started setting more ambitious targets for the use of UK steel in public projects and for all initiatives and schemes supported by public funds. Ultimately, they must devise policies to deliver those projects and grow the economy. Other countries have shown that they are not afraid to support their manufacturing sectors in the green transition. For example, in the USA, the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act uses the tax system to reward American manufacturers that invest in and use American manufacturing supply chains.

If this Government will not take action, the next Labour Government will. I am pleased that my party is committed to asking every public body to give more contracts to British firms, big and small. We will use stretching social, environmental and labour clauses in contract design to raise standards, and we will spend and make more in Britain. We are committing to making, buying and selling more in Britain. We will lead a culture change in Government, putting the growth of local industries and economies first and reviewing the pipeline for all major infrastructure projects to explore how to increase the materials made in Britain. We will also upskill workers to get the jobs for the future. That is the kind of vision that industries such as steel and our country need.

It is worth flagging up the continued risk of melted and poured Russian steel entering the UK via third countries. Although the UK has banned finished-steel imports from Russia and placed a 35% tariff on semi-finished steel from Russia, loopholes in the sanctions means that Russian steel that is re-rolled in the EU or Turkey and exported into the UK is reclassified as EU or Turkish-origin material, circumventing the ban and the tariff. That means UK consumers, including public projects, are unwittingly importing and using Russian steel. It is wrong as a point of principle and it has damaging consequences for the UK market. I echo UK Steel’s call for the Government to tackle that by applying sanctions on all steel that is melted and poured in Russia, regardless of whether it has been re-rolled in a third country.

At the Dispatch Box earlier in the month, the Prime Minister told the hon. Member for Scunthorpe that the Government

“remain committed to a thriving UK steel industry.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 557.]

Steel workers and steel communities throughout the country will understandably have taken that with a heavy pinch of salt. For our steel industry, the past decade has been characterised by neglect and a lack of vision for the future. The loss of skilled jobs at the SSI plant in Redcar and the Orb works in my constituency of Newport East were tragic cases in point. Orb was the last steel plant in the UK producing electrical steel, and it needed investment of about £50 million to be saved. The Government did not listen and did not let it be saved, and the opportunity was lost. That is heartbreaking. The next decade must be different, not just for our steel industry but for our energy security and a greener economy, both of which are utterly dependent on a healthy steel sector.

We need answers today. I hope the Minister will update us on her engagement with Tata, British Steel, Liberty Steel and Celsa Steel. I hope she will acknowledge that the current level of support for UK steelmakers in respect of energy costs and decarbonisation is not enough, and I hope the Government will commit to doing much more. The era of warm words has bitten the dust and the time for meaningful strategic action has come. Just like levelling up, the industrial strategy part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s title should not just be a handy buzz phrase; it should be a central, defining mission of the Government.

Instead of sticking plasters, we need a long-term plan. If the Conservative party is not up to the challenge, Labour stands ready to fill the gap and ensure that the steel industry has the bright future it needs and deserves.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I will not set a firm time limit at the moment, but we have quite a few speakers. Speeches of around five minutes would fit perfectly to allow all the Front Benchers to have their full 10 minutes.

14:54

[Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) for securing the debate. I know from our work together on the APPG for steel and metal related industries that we agree on many things and have the interests of the steel industry jointly at heart. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the level of focus that the steel industry is receiving at the moment. I am heartened by that and want to put my thanks on the record.

Steel is something that I never tire of mentioning in Parliament. My home town of Scunthorpe has one of the biggest steelworks in the country. I care about the local jobs because I understand the impact that it would have on our local community and on individuals and families were those jobs to be lost, but we can never say enough times the impact that it would also have on us as a nation and our position in the world were we ever to lose our ability to make our own steel.

Not only does the steelworks provide thousands of jobs that pay roughly 45% more than the average job in Yorkshire and Humberside, but its impact ripples throughout our entire local economy, supporting an ecosystem of businesses that sustain countless livelihoods. I have been told that it supports 20,000 jobs in our area, and I believe that to be the case. People who work in the steelworks in Scunthorpe are people I went to school with. They are people whose children went to school with my daughter. They are my neighbours. They are members of my family—my granddad made his living and raised his family through his work at the steelworks. It is a source of great pride to him and to many people in Scunthorpe and the surrounding area that the work our town has put in has helped to build this country.

We heard figures from the hon. Member for Newport East on the value of the output of steelmakers here in Britain, but it is almost impossible to truly quantify the impact that steel has throughout the wider economy and every sector and, just as importantly, the loss we would face were we not able to produce our own steel.

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on securing this debate, which is very important for not just steel but ceramics. Refractory ceramics are vital for the steelmaking industry, and particularly energy-intensive industries such as steel and ceramics need additional support to transition and invest in energy efficiency measures. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need additional support from the Government that is easier to access so that these industries can invest in energy efficiency measures?

[Holly Mumby-Croft]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and I have worked together on many of the issues that affect energy-intensive industries. Ceramics play a crucial role in the steel industry, lining the blast furnaces that we use to make steel and, of course, we like to have a cup of tea in a ceramic mug as well.

I cannot say enough times how important it is that we never, ever become the only country in the G20 that is not able to make its own steel. That would leave us at the mercy of steel producers around the world, who would be in full knowledge that we were not able to make our own steel, with the prices and challenges that would come with that. I hope the Minister agrees that steel truly is a vital strategic industry. Nobody can go a single day in their lives, from the moment they get up to the moment they go to bed, without needing to use steel.

A dependable supply of high-quality steel—that is a crucial point: in this country we make some of the finest steel money can buy anywhere in the world—will underpin our every endeavour as we tackle the problems of the 21st century and the issues that we grapple with in this place. It is vital for everything from growth to defence, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has served only to highlight the challenges and the importance of that. I truly believe that the public have a fantastic understanding of how important this is and instinctively know it is crucial that we are always able to make our own steel.

I have seen the support in recent years, including the £800 million of energy support and the two occasions when the Government took the brave step of extending the steel safeguards. That was a challenging time for us, so I congratulate the Government on doing that, because it was really important. Had we not done that, I am not sure we would be here now having this conversation—it was absolutely right. In Scunthorpe, we remember how the Government paid workers’ wages in 2019 and into early 2020 when the buy-out happened.

We have all seen the press reports about British Steel and Tata negotiating with the Government. I know that is a live negotiation and we cannot talk about it, but I will do everything I can, as I know other Members will, to help and assist all parties involved to reach a good outcome and secure the future of steelmaking in Scunthorpe. My own view is that, should a deal be reached, we must look at this as a pivotal moment. We must get a deal done and then the next day wake up and start straight away with the steps we need to take to allow steel to thrive into the future. We must immediately start discussions at pace about carbon border adjustments, so that we do not find ourselves falling behind the EU. We must look at the emissions trading scheme and the perverse incentive that it is possible to create whereby we can see loss-making production—carbon-producing production—incentivised by a scheme initially designed to prevent excess carbon production. We must also address all the issues relating to energy costs.

I urge the Government to go as far and as fast as they can on those issues, and to do everything they can to give the industry confidence that ours really is the Government that will put in place the measures that will secure the future of the steel industry. I believe they are, and I urge the Government to give the steel industry that confidence.

15:01

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard—for the first time, I think. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), who outlined the broader picture so well. I speak today as a member of Unite.

As others have said, the UK steel industry makes a vast contribution to our economy. It employs 34,500 people directly in the UK and supports a further 43,000 in supply chains. The industry makes a £2.4 billion direct contribution to UK GDP, and the supply chains it supports add another £3.1 billion each year. It offers skilled, well-paid employment, with a median salary that is almost 60% higher than the average in Yorkshire. But it is an industry that continues to be chronically undervalued by the Government, its needs neglected and its concerns ignored. That has consequences.

One hundred and eighty five of my constituents were recently told that their jobs would likely go as part of 440 redundancies across Liberty Steel’s UK businesses. Just before Christmas, in a speech I have made countless times, I warned that unless the Government acted on the underlying issues that face the industry, steel production in the UK would wither. For years, steel MPs from all parties have called on successive Business Ministers to listen to the industry, value its contribution to the economy and help to create an environment in which it can thrive. Our pleas have fallen on deaf ears, and our constituents are losing their jobs as a consequence.

Rotherham is a steel town. The industry is at the core of our identity and local economy. The job losses will affect not only the 185 workers and their families but businesses up and down Liberty’s supply chain and throughout our local economy. Many businesses move to Rotherham specifically because of our steel industry, including those on the advanced manufacturing park. The job losses will have a catastrophic impact on our town and communities.

Liberty has cited soaring energy costs as a major factor behind its decision, and the fact that its announcement came only days after the Government announced the scaling back of support for businesses struggling with high energy costs should surprise no one. If the Government are serious about delivering economic growth, they cannot stand idly by while industries that should be at the heart of our growth are pushed to the brink.

Our energy markets have placed British steelmakers at a profound disadvantage for decades. British steel manufacturers have been left struggling to compete due to the Government’s failure to act to address energy costs that for years have been vastly greater than those of our European competitors.

In its 2021 report, “Liberty Steel and the Future of the UK Steel Industry”, the BEIS Committee argued that:

“If additional support is not forthcoming, high electricity prices will continue to have a pernicious effect on the UK steel industry, resulting in long-term decline and future crises.”

Well, here we are. The Minister, as a member of that Committee at the time, will no doubt recall that the report went on to recommend:

“At a minimum, the price disparity should be brought down to within £1/MWh of the total cost faced by key competitors in France and Germany”.

I could not agree with the Minister more. But since that report, the only thing that has changed is her job title.

The Government have taken no meaningful action to address the crippling pressure on the industry. It is not only the cost of energy that continues to burden British steel producers: the industry has been prevented from investing in its future due to punitive business rates that penalise capital investment. Yet again, nothing has been done to reform a system that continually hamstrings our domestic steel industry.

Most damningly, public procurement procedures continue to fail to prioritise steel from British manufacturers. What was the point of Brexit if not to better support our own industries? That simple step, entirely within the Government’s control, could go a long way to stabilising the industry and laying the groundwork for future growth.

I believe that at the heart of the Government’s failure on steel has been a fundamental misunderstanding of our industry. It is not some relic of an industrial past but a dynamic, world-leading industry, vital to both Britain’s economic future and its security, that has been ignored, to the Government’s eternal shame.

The Government must now engage proactively with Liberty and the trade unions to work to limit job losses, and they must ensure that a comprehensive support package is in place for the affected workers. If the Government fail to act—and act with urgency—the redundancies announced in my constituency will sadly not be the last.

15:06

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

When I came to this debate I was not planning to make a contribution—I was planning just to make an intervention about green industries and the role that British Steel can play in them—but having listened to some of the contributions I would like to make two broad points, one looking backwards and one looking forwards.

My backward looking point is in response to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). She made a very good speech and I agreed with a lot of the important points she made, but I want to challenge the Opposition narrative that over the last 12 years the UK Government have pursued a deliberate policy of neglect of the steel industry.

I had the privilege of serving as a Minister in 2012, and it was not just Liberal Democrats fighting for steel at that time: many Conservative Ministers were fighting for the steel industry. I was in the Wales Office, putting together working groups and roundtables of energy-intensive industries, meeting officials at BEIS’s predecessor Department and looking at the energy costs of intensive energy users. There was a big focus on the needs of steel, particularly from us in the Wales Office because steel is so important to the Welsh economy and to our identity. Some of the contributions made by Members from other parts of the UK testify to that point in relation to their own communities.

There was a focus on steel in the early years of the coalition Government, and I believe that has continued until the present day. I do not remember a time when Ministers were sitting on their hands when it came to discussions about steel. I remember, during my short stint at the Department for Work and Pensions, being lobbied by Tata to sort out its pension problems and offload its obligations to British Steel pension holders.

It is almost like we have bounced from crisis to crisis in terms of discussing steel, but at no point did I honestly detect that the Government were asleep at the wheel. There have been a succession of different BEIS Ministers, Chancellors and Prime Ministers, but steel has always been a subject that has been able to attract attention from the top of Government, including from the Prime Minister’s office.

The hon. Member for Newport East made an important point, which I kind of agree with, about overall industrial policy. Going back even further to when Labour was in Government, we have not been good enough as a nation at protecting domestic supply chains and local content, and that point extends to the steel industry.

[Jessica Morden]

There may have been discussions about steel but there was very little by way of action. Will the right hon. Member acknowledge the huge disparity between what we pay for our energy and the way that other European countries help? There has been no action to address that.

[Stephen Crabb]

I accept that point. I remember bringing representatives of Celsa Steel from the constituency of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) to meet various Ministers at different points during that period of government. Celsa was incredibly open about opening its books and showing costs to Ministers. The point that Celsa made, when we put in place the support scheme for energy-intensive users, was about the disparity with competitor countries. That is a valid point that the Government should address. We are in an intensely competitive steel-production environment.

I come back to my point. Some Opposition Members hope to be in Government in a couple of years’ time as Ministers. They will have a string of companies knocking on their doors continuously asking for support and help. The trade-offs they will need to make, with regard to responsibility to taxpayers and the public finances, will be difficult. Difficult decisions need to be made. In the case of steel, at times the global challenges have felt so big that the amount of support being sought was almost unlimited. Ministers need to make difficult decisions, but I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Newport East that we need to look at the disparity with international competitors.

[Holly Mumby-Croft]

My right hon. Friend is making an interesting speech. He reflected on previous Governments’ approach to steel. He knows, as we all do, that under the last Labour Government steel jobs and steel production halved. The point he makes about fairness is an important one, and I thank him for making it.

[Stephen Crabb]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. My other argument is about looking forward. I reiterate my remarks about the importance of new green technologies and green industries for the UK economy in the years and decades ahead. British steel has a crucial role to play in that, but that will not happen by accident; it will require deliberate choices on the part of Ministers. We will not capture the full economic value of these new industries by accident. To ensure that we maximise local domestic content and supply chains will require a plan and deliberate choices by Ministers. To that end, I want to talk about the bid by Port Talbot, one of the UK’s most important steelmaking communities.

There is a joint bid by Port Talbot and Milford Haven in my constituency for a freeport—a Celtic freeport that will be used as a platform to help launch a new industry of floating offshore wind. We hope that Welsh Steel will play a key part in the supply chain. I do not expect the Minister to comment on a live bidding process, but I wanted to put that on record. If the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) were here, I know he would make the same point. That is a very exciting freeport proposal, with real projects and economics behind it, and I hope the Government will look favourably on it.

15:13

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I commend the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) for setting the scene so well. I do not have a steel factory in my constituency, or an industry that it is dependent on help from Government, but I do have a strong construction sector that depends on the British steel that comes from the factories in the areas others have spoken about, so it is important for me to put on the record why I support what the hon. Members for Newport East and for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) and others said in their introductions, and what others will say.

I remember the last Westminster Hall debate on steel. The hon. Member for Newport East spoke then as well, and I think the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) led the debate. We can see that he is in the main Chamber—his name is up there on the screen—and he cannot be in two places at one time, although I venture sometimes to try. The only reason he is not here is that he has obligations in the main Chamber; otherwise, he would be here.

I have listened with great interest to the contributions of Members today, and I agree with much of what has been said. I have long been outspoken about the need for us to bring manufacturing home to purpose-built, modern, green factories that give local people jobs and produce the renowned high-quality steel for which we are famed. I absolutely support what the hon. Member for Newport East and others have said.

You will know, Mr Pritchard, because your knowledge of the issue is every bit as good as mine, that a major issue for my constituents—many will be able to say it with me—is the Northern Ireland protocol. Why do I mention that now? Let me explain. Some of the Members here will be aware—I suspect that you are one of them, Mr Pritchard—that last August His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs informed steel producers of a 25% tariff on some GB steel imports into Northern Ireland. The steel sector is important to me, and it seems that we are being penalised more than anybody else. The tariff is directly related to the Northern Ireland protocol—it is one of the issues apparent between the UK Government and the EU, to which Northern Ireland has no representation—and the rule changes in relation to steel imports. Some of those steel imports reasons relate to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; we understand that.

There are big factors that are impacting UK steel, and Northern Ireland in particular, as expert Sam Lowe has outlined. As has been reported:

“Essentially, steel from Great Britain had been able to enter Northern Ireland without a tariff because it was covered by a tariff rate quota (TRQ) for UK exports to the EU. A TRQ allows a certain amount of a product to enter a customs territory without a tariff being paid, but once a set limit is reached tariffs apply.”

So we in Northern Ireland are being penalised to the tune of 25% for our British steel—our own steel—in our own country. The report continues:

“However, when sanctions were applied to Russia EU businesses could no longer buy steel from there. So at that time the EU scrapped country-specific TRQs for the UK and others in favour of one TRQ for Ukraine and another TRQ covering all ‘other countries’.”

The Northern Ireland protocol means that Northern Ireland continues to follow EU customs rules, and therefore suffers disadvantage, pain and cost factors. It is hard to comprehend. The tariff-free limit for supplies from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is set to be reached quickly. The UK previously had access to its own country-specific quota, which it could rely on to accommodate steel moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but now such movements will be covered by the “other countries” quota, which could fill up much more quickly, given that the entire world has access to it.

What does that mean in practice? It means a 25% tariff on British steel moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It means that, while European manufacturers can supply the UK with no tariff, the same does not apply to businesses in my constituency of Strangford. We want to use British steel from Newport, Scunthorpe and elsewhere, as we have in the past. It means that the local steel supplier just two minutes from my office in Newtownards is wondering how, with a 25% tariff increase, he can continue to be involved with construction industry clients that are already teetering on the edge of bankruptcy because of increased prices. It means that my steel importers—my British steel importers—cannot supply the suppliers of other Members in this Chamber. It means that all right hon. and hon. Members should stand and join with me in actively opposing the Northern Ireland protocol, not as a Northern Ireland problem but as a UK problem that affects their local economies and mine. I support the steel industry wholeheartedly, and I ask that every Member in this Chamber recognises my position as the Member for Strangford and does the same for Northern Ireland against this insidious protocol.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Front-Bench spokespeople, who will have 10 minutes each, I am afraid that I will have to set a time limit of four minutes for our final three speakers.

15:18

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The steel industry—or tin-plate industry, as we call it—is vital to my constituency of Llanelli, where we take the steel from Port Talbot and make it into a range of products that subsequently become tins for food or cans for aerosols. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on securing the debate, which comes at a crucial time for the steel industry.

In the interests of saving time, I will not repeat the excellent points that my hon. Friend made on the energy issue. Energy costs are not just an immediate challenge. Now is very much decision time for the future of the steel industry. The US Inflation Reduction Act and President Biden’s determination to tackle climate change have undoubtedly accelerated global interest in decarbonisation, which poses huge challenges for the steel industry. Our steelmaking capacity is ageing, and now is crunch time for steel manufacturers, which must decide where they will invest for the future—whether it will be the UK or elsewhere.

We know that blast furnaces cannot simply be replaced by electric arc furnaces. Yes, they have a role, and could clearly be run on electricity generated from renewable sources, but the real challenge is to decarbonise the blast furnace process of making steel from iron ore. That requires huge investment in research and innovation to develop the technologies of the future. The UK Government need to make the conditions right for companies to choose the UK. We need a clear vision from the UK Government, and determination to ensure that the UK gets ahead of the game and develops the technologies. We have to be prepared to take the risk in order to reap the gains. If the UK can lead the way, we will have not only a flourishing steel industry, but the opportunity to export our steel and our technologies.

We need a clear industrial strategy, from research and innovation through development to establishing production; as well as confidence that there will be a level playing field on issues such as energy costs and confidence, and a commitment to use UK-produced steel in public procurement. The only way we will attract companies to invest in the steel industry of the future is with a proper strategy. The alternative is the demise of our industry. If we are overtaken by countries producing cleaner, cheaper steel, we will be left behind. It is not just the steel industry that needs certainty; all the associated industries need to know whether to invest.

The horrors that have unfolded in Ukraine have reminded us just how important it is that we have our own steel industry—for our security of supply and to support a range of other industries, including defence. The situation has made us refocus on the importance of our own sovereign defence capability and the need to have the materials and the skilled workforce to be able to scale up production if necessary. There is strong cross-party support for sanctions against Putin’s Russia, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East explained, there are loopholes. I understand that the Government may have plans to close the loopholes, but I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed this and indicated when we can expect it to happen.

We need a level playing field when it comes to UK steel having to compete against imports. When there are distortions in the marketplace, with steel arriving at our ports from countries that give massive state subsidies to the steel industry, taking action should be well within World Trade Organisation rules, and is essential to protect our steel industry against unfair competition—all the more so given that both the US and EU protect their steel industries in this way. Without such protection, we risk losing production and workers facing redundancy, and ultimately a lack of future investment in the industry.

Despite that, in both summer 2021 and summer 2022, the UK Government made very last-minute decisions about the extension of the existing steel safeguards. This does nothing to reassure the industry. If we want future investment in the UK steel industry, companies need to know that there is strong political will to protect the industry, and that they can rely on the UK Government to protect them from being undermined by artificially cheap imports. I understand that the Department for International Trade is looking to reform the way the Trade Remedies Authority works. We need a system that really works for the industry—that can respond speedily, carry out investigations and act to protect our industry. The UK Government would do well to look at some of UK Steel’s suggestions to achieve this.

First, we need clear Government policy on how we deal with countries such as China and Russia. Secondly, given that in March 2022 we needed additional legislation to give the Secretary of State call-in powers, consideration needs to be given to how those powers could be part of the system so that the Secretary of State can use them in an initial investigation. Thirdly, reform of the way in which the economic interest test works is needed—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Tim Farron.

15:23

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and all those who have contributed in this important debate.

I will focus on the role of steel in making Britain a sustainable economy. Steel plays a massively significant role in our ability to extend the railways, to ensure we have the green technology to build zero-carbon homes, and to make best use of the natural resources in this country—wind and particularly hydro power, which I will talk about in a moment. But while it is vital to the greening of our economy, we cannot ignore the fact that steel produced with coal is a major contributor to climate change. The steel industry contributes 5% of the EU’s carbon emissions and 7% of global carbon emissions, equivalent to the entire aviation industry. To cut to the chase, the good news is that the amount of steel produced using coal is now down to 70% and that produced by renewable means, in particular using electric arc furnaces, is up to 30% and rising. Increasingly, customers for steel are demanding that it be produced in green and renewable ways: for example, Volvo is now committed to building 100% of its trucks in a fossil-free environment.

I make these remarks because of my engagement with a great controversy in my county of Cumbria, where the Government recently gave the green light to the first coalmine for 30 years, ostensibly to support the steel industry. It is clear that 83% of the coal produced by West Cumbria Mining will be exported and not support the UK steel industry. Both Tata and British Steel have been clear that they have no plans to make use of that coal. British Steel has been clear that it is the wrong sort of coal with the wrong sulphur content, so it will be next to no use whatever to the production of steel.

Numerous people, including the hon. Member for Newport East, have mentioned the Government’s recent comments about the green switch and supporting Tata with £600 million to help move towards electric furnaces. Perhaps we will hear more detail from the Minister. Tata says that it will cost £3 billion. We also know that Salzgitter in Germany, which produces about as much steel as the entire British steel industry produces in a year, will be completely fossil-free within 10 years, so my fear is that we are not being ambitious enough.

Steel is utterly vital. I think about my constituency, where we need a passing loop on the Lakes line to dual the capacity of the railway line that takes people to Britain’s second busiest and biggest visitor destination after London. We desperately need zero-carbon affordable homes, and we need steel for that, too. We need to make more use of wind, and although the British Isles have a higher tidal range than any other country on planet Earth apart from Canada, we are using next to none of it, and steel is vital to the wind turbine and the wave turbine. The barrage is another way in which we could make use of tidal and wave power.

Steel is vital to our green economy. As Britain decarbonises with new infrastructure based on steel, let us make sure that we also decarbonise the processes we use to make that steel.

15:26

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Ind)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) for so eloquently leading on this very important debate. I speak today as a member of the Unite and GMB trade unions.

Steel is a foundational sector across the UK, never more so than in Neath Port Talbot county borough. On such strong foundations, economies and supply chains are created. Port Talbot steelworks reaches all the surrounding communities. Thousands of Neath constituents have worked there, or know someone who works there or in its supply chain, as my father did. To say it has been a difficult few years for the steelworkers in Neath Port Talbot would be an understatement. Competing in the global market, the absence of anti-dumping tariffs, the lifting of lesser duty rates and rising UK energy prices have conspired to create uncertainty and fear.

Over 2,000 local jobs have been lost since 2014. Steel and the steel industry are vital to Wales and its economy. The idea that the steel sector does not have a future is unthinkable, but our steelworkers are as robust as the steel they make. They have so far bounced back from every adversity, but the situation is about to get much worse. Of the top 10 economies in the world, the UK’s is the only one with a declining steel industry. The UK Government should immediately sit down with Tata Steel and other businesses to do a deal on green steel for the sake of the future of our workforce.

The steel sector is a crucial aspect of the partnership between the public and private sectors. The UK Government should look to set indicative targets for the amount of domestically produced steel that we put into Government-funded projects. That would enable us to make, buy and sell more steel in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who is chair of the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metal related industries, of which I am a vice chair, cannot be with us today because he has duties in the main Chamber, but he has spoken in Westminster Hall many times about the importance of the steel sector to the UK, to his constituency and to Wales.

Floating offshore wind has the potential to transform the economy and jobs market in my hon. Friend’s Aberavon constituency and across south Wales, but it will happen only if floating offshore wind substructures and other components are manufactured and assembled locally. The public know we need a Britain that can stand more firmly on its own two feet, and they recognise the need for foundational industries to thrive if Britain is to prosper. Indeed, in one recent poll, 80% of those surveyed declared steel to be a strategically important industry that we must maintain in the UK. That is why the Labour party’s green prosperity plan will marry the quest for sustainable growth and jobs on which people can raise a family with the need for resilience. Net zero should be seen not as a hindrance, but as an opportunity for growth and prosperity. Labour’s proposed green steel renewal fund will secure the future of the steel industry for my hon. Friend’s constituents and mine, who live in Neath and work at Tata Steel. By greening our steel processing, Labour will ensure that our steelmakers can compete in a world in which global steel demand is on the rise. Britain needs its steel as a foundation of the modern manufacturing renaissance that Labour will deliver.

Time is running out for the future of our steel industry. I know that the Minister, who is a very magnanimous person, is working around the clock to familiarise herself with her new brief. I am grateful that she has already met the members of the all-party group for steel and metal-related industries, and I hope that she will stay a while in her new role. I urge her, however, to impress on the Treasury the importance of investing in decarbonisation of the UK steel industry, and particularly Tata Steel in Port Talbot. Without serious UK Government investment now, I fear that Tata Steel in Port Talbot is on the cliff edge.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Thank you to all our speakers for being on time; that allows each Front-Bench spokesperson to have 10 minutes.

15:30

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

I am extremely grateful to have this opportunity to speak, Mr Pritchard, and I thank the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and all the other Members who have spoken.

I do not want to be too downbeat or to go back too far, but ever since I came into this place in 2015, we have been in a steel crisis. In my constituency, we have Dalzell works, which does not produce steel; there is no steel production as such in Scotland. However, we use the steel produced mainly in Scunthorpe and roll it to a very high standard. The Scottish Government managed to save that mill in 2016. However, in all the time that I have been here, I have talked to a succession of Ministers—I welcome the new Minister, and I apologise for not meeting her this morning—and nothing has fundamentally changed. We have had steel charters, which Ministers signed —we all signed the steel charter—and we have talked about how the UK must produce its own steel, or otherwise we would be in grave danger. We are the only member of the G7, the G20 or whoever that might not produce steel in the future. That is not the way forward in the 21st century.

I was very proud when the Scottish Government stepped in and managed the deal that saved Dalzell works. In a constituency such as mine, which has a proud tradition of steelmaking, that was really important, not just because it is an iconic industry, but for the future. A lot of the work that is done in Dalzell ends up on wind turbines. Scottish renewables, as far as the Scottish Government are concerned, are one of the ways forward for Scotland to thrive as an independent country.

We are in the very lucky position of having lots of wind power, although we have had attempts to block the renewables industry. We wanted a carbon capture and storage unit and to reduce the price of steel by reducing the price of energy. We want to move things forward, so the Scottish Government actually have a plan. That has always been missing in the UK. I appreciate that the Minister wants to help in the latest crisis, as have all her predecessors. That is what has happened: they have helped in each succeeding crisis but we just keep stumbling from crisis to crisis, kicking the can down the road without actually implementing a proper, forward-looking strategy that would take the entire UK steel industry forward.

We have talked a lot about the value of steel, but we should also look at the supply chain and all the other industries and all the other parts of the economy that benefit from having a really good steel industry. For example, when the Scottish Government put out tenders for offshore wind, applicants for the ScotWind leasing, which took place recently, were required to submit a supply chain development strategy that set out the level and location of supply chain impacts throughout the lifetime of products. That goes back to what I talked about—signing the steel charter. We now have the ridiculous situation where in the UK, High Speed 2 suppliers and contractors were not mandated to use UK steel. That is basic stuff: it would not happen anywhere else, and it is really important that it should not happen here.

I do not want to take up too much time, but I want to plead with the Minister to look at energy costs, which is another huge issue faced by energy-intensive industries such as steel, as well as ceramics. I recognise most of the Members present from my long-standing membership of the APPG for steel and metal-related industries. For the whole time I have been in this place, all of those Members —the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) has also been mentioned—have been fighting to save either their local plant or the industry in general. We have seen huge increases in tariffs from the US and cheap Chinese steel flooding into the country, so again, I go back to the major point I want to make: could the Minister please give us an indication of the way forward, with a steel plan for the next few years? We should be looking 20 years ahead, not stumbling from crisis to crisis.

I am not shy about saying that the Scottish Government look at things, consult and try, using their limited powers, to do stuff that helps Scottish industry—in this case, steel. We need the same commitment from the UK Government; we need something like mandated use of UK steel in projects across the UK, because without that, we are leaving the business open. Brexit has had an awful effect on steel as well, because we can no longer access markets in Europe in the same way. We cannot go back to the drawing board, because there has not been a drawing board on which a steel strategy has been written. Can I please have some sort of assurance that the UK Government will look at energy prices, among other things, and create a proper industrial strategy that includes steel, making sure that the UK is still a steel producer in five years’ time?

15:37

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

As always, Mr Pritchard, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) has set out a fantastically well-crafted case for the UK steel industry. The sense of the whole debate has been about the strategically important role that steel has to play in the UK—it is probably fair to say that everybody who has spoken has accepted that point, and indeed made that point. I dare say that in a few minutes’ time, the Minister will do so as well.

The economic and national security value of steel made in the UK is incredibly important. We have seen in recent times why it is so important that we have strong domestic supply chains in our core industries—that has been underlined by Putin’s invasion—and steel is at the forefront of the issue. Throughout the debate, a number of Members have made the case that it is dangerous to rely on imports, as well as for the importance of demonstrating confidence in the steel industry and a long-term commitment to it, the key role it has in the transition to low carbon, and its importance to regional economic success, jobs and communities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) rightly spoke about the 185 workers whose jobs are at risk in her constituency alone, out of 440 redundancies at Liberty. Can we honestly see a future for this country where steel for civil aircraft made by Boeing and Airbus is not being produced by Liberty Steel? This issue is strategically important for our domestic supply chains, and Liberty is producing that steel for incredibly important customers. The impact on the workers, the families and the communities is a point that my hon. Friend made extremely strongly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) reminded us about the last-minute U-turn—it was so late that I think it was a last-second U-turn—on tariffs last summer. I am afraid that that U-turn is typical of what we have seen over 13 years of this Government when it comes to the steel industry. It is typical of their approach to many other aspects of the economy as well.

That is not the only late response we have seen. We saw it with SSI and the blast furnace in Redcar, which at that time was one of the leading examples of carbon capture, utilisation and storage in the steel industry anywhere in the world. The Government did not intervene, and by the time Ministers became increasingly involved, talking to the steel industry and unions in 2016, it was too late.

I know that the Minister has met the steel unions, but I hope she will impress on her boss, the Business Secretary, the importance of talking to the trade unions in the steel industry. As this is a strategically important industry, there should be interest at Cabinet level, as well as at the Minister of State level. I hope I am right in thinking that she is the Minister of State; otherwise, I have just promoted her.

[The Minister for Industry and Investment Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Well, you have just demoted me.

[Bill Esterson]

The Minister says from a sedentary position that I am making out that her role is not important enough. I am not doing that at all—I think it is a very important role. It is important that steel Ministers have longevity in the role, but it is also important that there is a strategic role at Cabinet level. That was the point I was making; it was certainly not my intention to undermine the Minister. I hope she will take back to the Secretary of State the points made in writing by the trade unions.

Returning to the Government’s late response, I hope it is not as a result of the announcements at Liberty that we are suddenly seeing press reports of hundreds of millions of pounds potentially being available. I know that the Minister will not be able to confirm that today, because of ongoing negotiations. But I do hope that the press reports come to fruition. When she was Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) promised £250 million for a green steel fund, but that did not happen. I am afraid that our memory of what Government have previously promised the steel industry is still strong.

I gently say to Government Back Benchers that what sounds like blaming the last Labour Government for 13 years of Conservative policy does not wash with people. The figures show that steel industry production in this country has declined by half since the global financial crisis. Thirteen of those 15 years have been under a Conservative or coalition Government. We have fallen from 17th to 25th in the world for steel production since this Government came to office. Of course, this is at a time when China and India have dramatically increased their steel production and every other steel-producing nation has experienced decline—it is just that the decline has been higher in this country over the past 13 years. As Members have pointed out, of the top 10 steel-producing countries, we are the only country currently in decline. We have to address that. We can and should go through the history, as long as we learn from it. As long as we apply the lessons from history, we will be in the right place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) made a heartfelt contribution about the value to communities of the steel industry, using her own family history to make the point about how vital it is to the Welsh economy. Indeed, she was one of the Members who made the point about this country being the only one of the top 10 steel-producing nations where the industry is in decline. The question is: what are we going to do about it? We have to address the challenge of our energy prices. The prediction for this year’s energy prices is that in Germany, steel-producing companies will pay £107 per kWh for electricity and in this country it will be £174. This cannot continue. The Government must take action on the emissions trading scheme. Members have explained the significant cost to the industry—£120 million amounts to 60% of capital investment in the steel industry. These are the challenges the Government must take on in a strategic way, not by using yet another sticking-plaster approach to a problem in the economy.

The Government can and must do more on procurement. Environmental, social and labour clauses are at the heart of Labour’s plan for procurement. It is beyond belief that this country is the only major country that would even dream of giving a contract for warships to an overseas company. There is no guarantee that the Spanish consortium awarded that £1.6 billion contract will use UK-made steel in producing those fleet solid support ships. Other countries take a more strategic approach. The United States has the Inflation Reduction Act, with strong commitments to the transition to low-carbon steel production at its heart. Such a commitment has also been made by other countries whose investments are years ahead of what is going on in this country, including Canada, Spain, Belgium and Germany. They are committed to low-carbon steel production.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the contract for warships. In Belfast, Harland and Wolff has benefited from that, but the disadvantage is that if it wants to buy British steel and bring it over to the Northern Ireland, it will be 25% more expensive. Again, that is a conflict of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to sort out the Northern Ireland protocol. That is a slightly longer and wider debate, but it is an important point for him to raise as a Northern Ireland MP.

I want to remind the Minister about the problem with Russian steel, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East mentioned. It cannot be right that melted and poured Russian steel can be diverted via a third country and then imported into this country. Sanctions have to apply to all Russian-produced steel. We have had the Government announcements, media reports and lots of talk over the past 13 years from 12 Ministers. What we need is a proper strategic approach. Labour is putting forward an industrial strategy and plans for a green steel fund of £3 billion. That is the kind of strategic long-term commitment that will deliver the confidence and certainty to the industry that is needed. We have a plan. We have proposed a billion-pound fund for energy-intensive industries and it could help right now. The Government can adopt our plan if they want to. It is there in writing in the public domain. They can adopt that plan or come up with their own, but it has to be at a strategic level—no more sticking plasters. We need a strategic long-term answer for the future of this vital strategic industry.

15:48

[The Minister for Industry and Investment Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on securing the debate and raising the incredibly important issue of the contribution that the steel industry makes to the UK economy. We seem to be spending a lot of time with each other, and I want to put on the record that, while we are from different political parties, we are all aligned on doing what we can for the sector.

I am slightly anxious that everyone keeps pointing out that I am the 12th or 13th Minister—I am not sure if that is the kiss of death or not. As well as getting through my speech, I want to respond to all the contributions because I know how important that is for all the MPs who need to go home to their constituencies this weekend and explain what they have done on behalf of the steel sector.

I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—life comes at you fast when your own Select Committee report is read out to you in a debate. I thank the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for setting out the importance of the steel sector to the Welsh economy; the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), whose points I will respond to very shortly; and the hon. Members for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I will cover the Northern Ireland protocol briefly, if time allows.

Of course, I thank the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). Freeports were in my Maritime 2050 plan—launched when I was previously maritime Minister—which is backed by the Associated British Ports. I am not sure what more I can say, other than I do love freeports and ABP is a pretty good organisation; hopefully, that is enough said.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft)—our lady of steel—to whom I am indebted for the support she provides when I constantly ask for bits of information to ensure that my Department is absolutely on the right path in delivering for the steel sector. I also thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). I will try my very best to get to the points she raised as well.

As we know, steel contributed £3.8 billion to the UK economy in 2021. It is crucial to many downstream sectors, such as construction, automotive and our green energy revolution, all of which sit in BEIS. I take care of automotive, aviation, maritime and construction, so it is critical to the rest of my brief. The industry provides a critical foundation that underpins our manufacturing, energy and infrastructure sectors, with a proud history forged in our United Kingdom.

In 2021, the steel sector supported 39,000 well-paid jobs in steel production and a further 59,000 jobs across the UK economy. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe does not get political on steel, I thought she landed a good point in saying that jobs and production halved under Labour. However, we are trying to be collective in our support of the steel sector, so I will not dwell on that too much. We know that for many constituencies, steel is the lifeblood of the local economy and a real source of local pride. I pay particular tribute to the hard-working steel workers who have contributed much to our steel industry over the years.

However, as we have heard today, we have to recognise that there are global pressures. The sector is under stress everywhere. This is not just a UK issue; there are global challenges exacerbated by global overcapacity and the need to decarbonise. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth asked about the oversupply issue. Through the global forum on steel excess capacity, the G20 and other interested nations agreed important policy principles and recommendations to tackle the unfair subsidies that we believe are the cause of overcapacity, and we continue to work together to find solutions to this challenge.

We are disappointed that not all major steelmaking economies are taking part in these discussions, and I call on all players to come back to the table—in particular China, which represents more than half of all steelmaking capacity in the world. There are also great opportunities in how we can use steel as we transition to a zero-emission economy and help our other great industries to transition as well.

Challenges are particularly acute at the moment. Unfortunately, over the past couple of weeks we have learned of the potential redundancies being made at Liberty Steel, including in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newport East. Obviously, these are commercial decisions, and I am working incredibly hard with these businesses and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure we are doing what we can to support every worker and give them the support they need. We spend most of our time working on that, to ensure they have opportunities to be trained up and get the support they need. There are a lot of challenges that the Government are facing, but it is not just us in the UK.

I want to cover some of the support that the Government have provided, which is substantial and has been in place for some time. More than £800 million has been made available to the steel sector alone since 2013. There has always been a discrepancy between the price of energy here and in Germany, which is quoted quite often, but £800 million is a substantial amount of support. We have created new, competitive funds, with more than £1.5 billion made available. The lead Member for this debate, the hon. Member for Newport East, reported that that funding covers not just steel, but a number of other industries, but I am keen to ensure that the steel sector gets the support it needs. I promised the hon. Lady that I would go through the funds so that she would be able to share that information back home in her constituency.

The hon. Lady mentioned the CCUS infrastructure fund. Each site is at a different stage when it comes to decarbonising, but that is £1 billion. There is funding of £240 million through the net zero hydrogen fund, which I know is important to many Members present; £55 million through the industrial fuel switching fund; £20 million through the Industrial Decarbonisation Research and Innovation Centre, which provides capital funding to projects that support fuel switching to hydrogen on industrial sites; £289 million through the industrial energy transformation fund to help businesses with high energy use, including steel; and £66 million as part of the industrial strategy challenge fund. Those budgets are in place to help the steel sector in the long term. They are not short-term sticking plasters, but substantial amounts of money.

[Sarah Champion]

I recognise and am grateful for all the support the Government have given and will give to steel, but those are like little Lego bricks. There is not the joined-up strategy that we need to have confidence in our industry. Will the Minister please come forward with a proper national plan to save this vital sector?

[Ms Ghani]

We need to put in place all the budgets that are available. I will quickly touch on procurement, which gives confidence in what we are hoping to do in the long-term for the sector; it does put together a plan.

As I said when I was at the APPG earlier, since I have been in post I have been focused on the issues that we are facing right now—with Liberty, for example. I cannot comment on the negotiations because they are live. I said to the APPG that, once we have got over that moment, I hope to sit down, do a refresh and look at everything we can provide the sector in the long term. What is happening in the United States is a game-changer, so we can try to push back on some of the challenges we have had on procurement previously. We can try to see what more we can do.

I am anxious that I have only four minutes left. On the £18 billion of energy relief, Gareth Stace, director general of UK Steel, said that the energy bills discount scheme provides

“important certainty and stability for steel producers’ production costs”.

We have legislated for the full range of tools allowed under the WTO rules so that the UK can tackle the threat of unfair trading practices and injuries.

Furthermore, in financial year 2020-21, the Government procured UK-produced steel worth £268 million for major UK projects—an increase of £160 million on the previous year. When I was the High Speed 2 Minister, before I realised I might get the steel brief, I always used to bang on to HS2 about not procuring more British steel. I hope to go back and reflect on procurement again, especially because it was in the BEIS Committee report—I want to say that before the hon. Member for Rotherham pushes that and reminds me of what I committed to.

About 8.4 million tonnes of steel is required for infrastructure projects in the UK, including 5.5 million tonnes for contracts for difference, which are not always considered public procurement, so there is huge scope for more procurement to take place in the UK. I will try to address that too.

There has been a huge level of engagement. The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) said that it should be at Secretary of State level, but I have been meeting with the unions. I have kept every appointment that has been asked of me.

[Bill Esterson]

It should be both.

[Ms Ghani]

It is both. The Secretary of State regularly meets the senior members of all the organisations that try to speak to us about steel.

[Bill Esterson]

You haven’t met the unions.

[Ms Ghani]

I was with the unions yesterday and in front of the APPG today.

I am going to run out of time, so I will quickly touch on the carbon border adjustment mechanism. We are aware of the risk of carbon leakage, which a number of Members highlighted, and we have been monitoring the EU CBAM proposal with interest. As I said to the APPG this morning, once the consultation is out, it is absolutely vital that we put in the best submission. I have agreed to come back to the APPG to ensure we do that constructively.

Public procurement is a key focus of mine. I am trying to get over the negotiations at the moment, and I will reflect on what more we can do with procurement. We are looking at the BEIS steel procurement taskforce, and we will also reflect on what is happening in the United States.

On trade, Members know my positions on countries such as China and Russia, as double sanctionees. I know how important it is to ensure we are resilient in the UK. We work very closely with the Department for International Trade to put together the best packages for trade. I absolutely understand the points made about Russia. We are doing everything we can to ensure that that steel is not arriving here, but I will go back and see whether we can push back any further. I will do everything I can to ensure that happens.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe was keen to reflect on the steel safeguards. We have agreed an extensive solution to the US section 232 tariffs to significantly increase US market access for UK firms.

I am anxious that I am going to run out of time, so I will respond to Members in writing. I reiterate my commitment to the sector and to appearing in front of the APPG as soon as possible to ensure we are putting together a good package and are able to lobby No. 10 and No. 11 collectively.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I call Jessica Morden to wind up. You have 20 seconds.

15:10

[Jessica Morden]

I thank all Members for coming along. We have agreed that this is a critical time for steel. I welcome the new steel Minister to her role. I welcome the talks; I think they are a step in the right direction. I also support Community’s call for steel companies to reconsider any plans for restructuring while those talks are ongoing and before we know what future support there might be. I say to the Minister that we need more data on procurement, so perhaps she can provide that—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Silsden and Steeton Bridge

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I call Robbie Moore to move the motion, and then I will call the Minister to respond. As hon. Members know, there is no opportunity for the mover of the motion to wind up in a 30-minute debate.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered construction of a Silsden and Steeton bridge.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am delighted to have secured my own personal time in the House of Commons to raise an important local issue: my campaign to get the Silsden to Steeton pedestrian bridge built over the busy A629 dual carriageway.

Before I get into the detail, it is important to outline why this campaign is so important. Silsden is a town with a population of around 8,000, including myself; perhaps I should declare that as an interest, because I would like to benefit from this bridge. Silsden is connected to Steeton—a slightly smaller settlement—by the A6034, otherwise known as Keighley Road, which then goes on to become Station Road. It is a distance of less than 1,000 metres.

Steeton has a busy and well-utilised railway station, with direct links to Skipton, Bradford and Leeds. Many of my constituents living in Silsden benefit from that station, but getting there is a treacherous journey on foot. What separates the two settlements is a very busy dual carriageway. The A629 is a busy trunk road going east to west between Skipton and Keighley, and beyond. It takes a huge amount of heavy traffic every day and into the night.

On the junction between the busy dual carriageway and the two roads connecting Silsden and Steeton is a two-lane roundabout. There is no ideal crossing point for a pedestrian to get across the roundabout and the busy dual carriageway from Silsden to Steeton. For a resident living in Silsden with children, or a young person who is wanting to walk from Silsden to Steeton, the connection to get to the roundabout is not easy in itself. The pavements are very narrow on either side of the road.

If a person is walking from Silsden in the direction of Steeton, once they get to the bridge that goes over the Aire river, the pavement disappears on one side and they have to cross over to the other side. They then have to make their way up to the busy roundabout and take their life into their hands to cross it before making their way on to Steeton. That is just not good enough. We must get a pedestrian bridge built as a matter of urgency, because many people use the crossing.

What action has been taken to date? Kris Hopkins, who was the previous Conservative MP for Keighley, first lobbied on the issue. He got a petition going that was signed by many residents living in Silsden and Steeton who had to use the crossing on a day-to-day basis. As the MP for Keighley, and Ilkley at the time, he was successful in securing £700,000 from our Conversative Government for a feasibility study, which was awarded to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority. In turn, it instructed Bradford Council to undertake a feasibility study and build a business case so more funds could be drawn down to get the pedestrian bridge built.

That money was awarded way back in late 2016, and it took until 2020 for the Labour-run Bradford Council and the Labour-run West Yorkshire Combined Authority to even get the feasibility study done. Almost four years! What on earth were they doing in that period to build a business case? It was only after I lobbied, after getting elected in 2019, that Bradford Council and West Yorkshire Combined Authority produced this feasibility study, and—surprise, surprise—what do we think it said? We need a bridge to cross this busy dual carriageway. Unbelievable! They spent £700,000 on determining that, but we could all have said that it needed to be done.

The feasibility study said that it was going to cost £3.6 million to construct the bridge—a hefty sum. Of course, detail is important, and I appreciate that it can take some time to build up the feasibility and business cases to draw down funds. But, looking at the figures, it would seem that West Yorkshire Combined Authority, a Labour-run administration controlled by a Labour Mayor, and the Labour administration at Bradford Council could not even get their figures right. In 2020, they told us, and my constituents, that it was going to cost £3.6 million to build the bridge. In June 2021, they then told us it was going to cost £5.5 million, and then—surprise, surprise—we get to August 2022 and the figure has gone up dramatically to £10.3 million.

All we want is a pedestrian bridge across a dual carriageway, and they are now telling us that it is going to cost £10.3 million. That is an increase of £6.7 million since the first figure of £3.6 million from the feasibility study that took them almost four years to do. What on earth have they been doing during the last four years, and what on earth was the previous Labour MP doing to get any traction on this project? Nothing!

I can only assume that those figures have been exaggerated to try to kick the project into the long grass because they are not interested in building the bridge. Well, let me tell you, Mr Pritchard: I absolutely am. Since I have been elected as the Conservative MP, we have been successful in securing the funds to deliver this project. Those funds have been awarded by this Conservative Government to West Yorkshire Combined Authority via an £830 million fund that is ringfenced for transport and infrastructure-related projects.

The money is there; we have secured that, and now it moves on to deliverability. Back in 2022, when the announcement was made that we had been successful and secured the money, what did Labour-run Bradford Council and Labour-run West Yorkshire Combined Authority tell us? “Oh well, it is going to take until 2026 for this bridge to be built.” I cannot get my head around how much time it takes to get a project off the ground. All we want is a safe crossing so that my constituents can get from Silsden to Steeton without having to take their lives into their hands by crossing a busy dual carriageway.

The incompetence at the council is unbelievable. Look at how long it takes to get major infrastructure projects off the ground. The Queensferry crossing, connecting Edinburgh to Fife, took six years to build, yet the council are saying that a pedestrian bridge is going to take another four years to get off the ground. That is simply not good enough. The feedback that I am getting is that the ground conditions are complex—well, let’s get it sorted out and do our research so that we can get the bridge built. I know that planning issues can be complex. Compulsory purchase powers may need to be implemented because I assume that land take will be required, as the council will not own all of the land. Let us get this project going.

I will continue to bang the drum for driving economic growth and ensuring that we have a safe crossing for my constituents, but we must get the council and West Yorkshire Combined Authority moving because I am getting impatient and I will not stop banging the drum on this issue for my constituents. All we want is a safe pedestrian crossing over a busy dual carriageway. I want to crack on and get it built now, so that a parent living in Silsden does not have to drive their child almost 1 km to drop them off at the station in Steeton or take their life into their hands when crossing the dual carriageway. I am getting fed up with the sluggish approach of our council and of West Yorkshire Combined Authority. As I say, let us get this bridge built.

Will the Minister use all his efforts to put pressure on the Labour West Yorkshire Mayor, who is dragging her feet on this issue, and on Labour-run Bradford Council, to get this project delivered with urgency? Will he write to those two organisations to put pressure on them to get the bridge built? Will he come to see me and meet some of my residents in Silsden and Steeton, so that we can get this project off the ground? All we want to do is get the bridge built.

16:10

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and it is always important to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore). Although I am from the other side of the Pennines, I went to school just up the road from him, so I am aware of the issues that he raises. Being an Ermysted’s old boy, I have friends from the neck of the woods that he mentions, in Silsden and Steeton, and I know how important the road crossing is for him and his constituents.

I thank him for securing the debate and for building on the work of his predecessor but one, Kris Hopkins, who started this campaign. It is astonishing that it is now longer than six years since the project started. I am sure that by working together, we can reach a situation where this is not a bridge too far for Bradford Council and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, and get it delivered for local people.

It is a pleasure to address some of the points that my hon. Friend raised. Putting in place transport infrastructure that supports local communities is a key priority for my Department not just for West Yorkshire, but for the entire north of England and the whole country. That cannot be done without local authorities, which we need on the ground to deliver schemes.

My hon. Friend will recognise the strong investment that the Government have made in transport in the north. That has been reinforced through our flagship city region sustainable transport settlement. That will provide about £6 billion to the largest city regions in England to transform their local transport networks over the next few years.

CRSTS represents an unprecedented investment in West Yorkshire’s transport, and it will play a key role in supporting growth and productivity, levelling up and decarbonisation. The settlement will see West Yorkshire specifically receive £830 million from central Government funding for investment in public transport infrastructure and many important projects. Hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, can be very proud of the role that they have played in helping to ensure that West Yorkshire gets the money for those local schemes.

As part of that £830 million, £9.5 million is provided for the construction of the Silsden and Steeton bridge. Additionally, the Department for Transport provided £700,000 to support the business case for the development. How on earth it took four years, I do not know. It feels to me that there was a clear hiatus between the tenure of Mr Hopkins as the local MP and that of my hon. Friend, who now represents Keighley and Ilkley, when things did not get done because they were not being pushed for for local people. I know from speaking here and in the House that my hon. Friend is a cut above in fighting for his constituents, wherever they are in his patch.

The £830 million commitment through CRSTS is also expected to be supplemented by mayoral combined authorities with a local contribution of 15% to 20%. As well as providing investment for the construction of the bridge, CRSTS gives West Yorkshire’s metro Mayor huge autonomy and flexibility in investing in wider local transport priorities for the region, and it is her decision what to prioritise. Personally, I cannot understand why a relatively small project, which is unlikely to have a broader impact, is not being prioritised, especially when it has been campaigned for for so long not just by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, but by his predecessor’s predecessor. The investments include large transit systems, massive improvements in Bradford city centre and all sorts of other things, but crucially, they also include the important link for his constituents in Steeton and Silsden.

The Government fully appreciate the critical role that our city regions play in driving growth and long-term prosperity, and connectivity is vital to that. It is our ambition that every region has at least one globally competitive city at its heart. The CRSTS programme, which is the latest part of this Government’s significant track record in investment in West Yorkshire, will begin to realise that ambition by investing in transport networks and opening up areas in the region for more employment, education, leisure and housing. My hon. Friend has consistently campaigned for such interventions as a local MP on the ground and through his work in Parliament.

We believe that better transport connectivity helps all our regions to fulfil their potential. Alongside CRSTS, the Government are providing £70 million for West Yorkshire’s bus service improvement plan, which is being used locally to introduce the excellent and very welcome £2 fare cap. That is central Government money for which hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend, have campaigned. We have provided £173 million to a large public transport scheme in Leeds, improving transport for residents and workers. Many of my hon. Friend’s constituents will commute to work in those places, and that is why the regional funding is so important.

The Government have funded important local schemes, including through the transforming cities fund. We are really trying to help to drive up local transport and active travel. We have also helped West Yorkshire to establish a £1 billion transport fund, which is a 20-year commitment for the city region and will help create 20,000 more jobs.

Taken together, all those initiatives will deliver significant improvements to bus services in the region, including safer and more accessible bus stops, better highways and improved journey times. The £830 million is merely the latest in a series of investments in West Yorkshire and the region, which shows our long-term commitment. When we provide such funding, we hand the reins to local people, councils and combined authorities. It is right that those local councils, such as Bradford Council, and combined authorities are held to account for what they deliver with that money for local people. That is why I think today’s debate is so important.

Across the north more broadly, the Government have been investing very substantially: around £33 billion has been invested in transport since 2010, and around a tenth of that will come from the CRSTS funding. There have been projects across Yorkshire and the Humber, and the integrated rail plan is providing £100 million to look at the best way to take HS2 trains into West Yorkshire. Furthermore, over £239 million is being distributed to local authorities across the north that are not receiving the CRSTS funding that West Yorkshire is receiving, in order to support pothole repairs and local transport measures in 2022 and 2023.

Through greater investment in local areas, we can grow the economy, create good jobs and spread opportunity everywhere. The new funding will help to do that, and— this is important for towns such as those in my hon. Friend’s area—it will help to reflect that real local pride. That is part of what he said: he wants to see those things delivered for local people to create pride in their towns, especially when they have fought for so long and so hard for some of these things.

With the Government providing significant funding for places to fulfil their ambitions, I look forward to seeing this being delivered, and it is all about delivery. The responsibility lies with West Yorkshire Combined Authority and the city region’s metro Mayor, Tracy Brabin. West Yorkshire was at the forefront of our drive to create mayoral combined authorities and we recognise the strategic importance of joining up transport connectivity, which is why we put it at the front of the queue. Now it is up to Tracy Brabin to deliver.

Through a series of devolution deals, we have provided more transport powers—we want to provide more—and more funding to support mayoral combined authorities, but we have to see them delivering. The best way for them to do that is to push forward schemes such as the one in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We understand that there are the skills and the capacity in local government; that is why they have been asking for these powers and why we have given the powers to them. Now they need to deliver.

Central Government supports local government’s capacity and capability in a huge number of ways, including through the resourcing grant for the combined authority of £7 million, which is huge money. It is there to help and to deliver projects such as the one that my hon. Friend has been fighting for.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the construction of this bridge is very important for local people, and I am excited and proud that the Department has been able to support it through funding. I take this opportunity to commend the combined authority for part of its track record on some of these projects, which they have pushed forward. However, we want to see all these schemes being delivered—not just some that have been handpicked—as quickly as possible, so that as many people as possible can benefit from them.

My Department will work closely with West Yorkshire Combined Authority on the progress of its whole settlement to realise positive outcomes for people living in Steeton and Silsden, as well as for people living in the wider West Yorkshire area, and to understand whether the local authority can take up any of the opportunities perhaps to accelerate the schemes as they go ahead to construction.

As my hon. Friend requested, I will ask my officials to raise this issue in their regular meetings with the combined authority, and I will write to him about that. The Department will monitor each MCA’s progress throughout their settlement period to ensure that ambitious plans are matched by successful delivery, so he can rest assured that we will continue to monitor this work. However, the responsibility for delivery and deployment ultimately sits with the local authority in Bradford. That is why it is so important that these issues continue to be raised.

I look forward to seeing the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council deliver promptly on the investment that my Department has made in this scheme, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it. I will also be delighted to come up and visit him, because I think that we all need to put our shoulders to the wheel, just to give this scheme a bit of a nudge in the right direction.

I hope that I have been clear about the level of support that the Department has been providing to West Yorkshire, the importance we attach to the bridge between Steeton and Silsden, and, importantly, the broader connectivity investment that we are providing for my hon. Friend’s area and the region. The sluggishness of the local authorities in this case stands in stark contrast to the sterling work of my hon. Friend, who is always at the forefront of championing his constituents. I look forward to continuing to work with him and the local authorities to get this project delivered, to get the area thriving, and to make this happen sooner rather than later.

Question put and agreed to.

16:23

Sitting suspended.

Violence against Women and Girls: Plymouth

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Westminster Hall

16:29

[Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of violence against women and girls in Plymouth.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. 2021 was a tough year for the city of Plymouth. In August, a young man tragically took the lives of five people in Keyham, killing two women and a little girl, before turning the gun on himself. In November, 18-year-old Bobbi-Anne McLeod was abducted from a bus stop in Leigham and found several days later, close to a beach in my constituency, having been brutally murdered by a man. These horrific incidents compounded the sense of fear and concern among female residents of Plymouth, which was shared by many across the country after the murder of Sarah Everard by a police officer in London, earlier in 2021.

As a result, it became clear that something needed to be done to tackle violence against women and girls in Plymouth, if the city was to feel safer and be safer. And so began a cross-party piece of work, which resulted in a groundbreaking report containing 15 recommendations. Recommendation No. 5 states that Plymouth should share its learning:

“Plymouth will share its story as widely as possible so others can learn from the experiences of people in the city and the work of the Commission. The Commission will call on local MPs to host a debate in Westminster on male violence against women and girls in Plymouth.”

That is why we are here today: to share the work of the Plymouth commission on violence against women and girls, and the ongoing work across the city to embed real change and make women and girls safer in our city.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) sends his apologies. He cannot be with us due to a long-standing commitment, but his work following the Keyham murders was exceptional. I am also expecting my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) to pop in later in the debate. His ministerial duties mean that he cannot say anything, but he is very supportive of the action we are taking today. We are all in this together. I also pay tribute to the leader of Plymouth City Council and the leader of the Plymouth Labour group for collaborating so closely on this project. They appointed a rising star of the council chamber, Councillor Rebecca Smith, to head up the commission. Months later, that appointment has proved to be well judged.

The first step on the commission journey was to host a question and answer event with groups already working on the issues of violence against women and girls in Plymouth, ranging from the police and the council to organisations such as Trevi and First Light, which work with survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence. It was important to start by more clearly sharing the existing work being done across the city. The online event was attended by over 120 people and gave a clear sense of the sort of questions that women wanted answers to, but also provided some of the topics that the commission would need to address—for example, the importance of working with young people to help to shift the culture of everyday sexism and misogyny that so many experience.

A group of experts from across the country were invited to join the commission to investigate the current situation in the city and make recommendations on how the city should tackle violence against women and girls. The commission was chaired by Councillor Rebecca Smith, with former chief prosecutor Nazir Afzal OBE serving as an independent adviser. Just over 12 months ago, the commission met for the first time and set about gathering evidence to report on how Plymouth was tackling violence against women and girls, and to recommend what might be done to enhance existing work. The result was the “Male Violence Against Women and Girls Report”, with its 15 recommendations, which was published in May 2022 and is available online.

We believe that the commission and its report and recommendations are the first of their kind in the country. The commission heard over 40 hours of oral evidence, conducted a citywide survey completed by over 1,300 people, and received written evidence from a large number of sources. From the start of the work, it became clear that the elephant in the room is the fact that the violence against women and girls acronym, VAWG, unintentionally leaves out any mention of the perpetrators. The commission therefore deliberately referred to male violence against women and girls throughout its report, to make that point. Although it is important to acknowledge that not all sexual violence, domestic abuse or stalking is male on female, it clear from the data that the vast majority is. In 2019-20, 69.3% of domestic abuse victims in the city were female and 74.4% of suspects were male. Thus, the commission sought to keep this tragic reality central to its work and recommendations.

The report and recommendations focused on four key areas: the need for cultural change around language and behaviour; the need for better access to support for women and girls who are victims of male violence; the need to help women and girls across the city to feel safer by creating safe places and spaces; and the recognition that, in order to deliver the recommendations, the whole community needs to be involved. Let me deal briefly with each area in turn, beginning with cultural change.

How do we change our deeply entrenched culture, which is riddled with inappropriate male attitudes to women and girls? In particular, how do we do so when the internet has made access to degrading images of women a free-for-all, and on social media so-called influencers such as Andrew Tate, as well as men belonging to the incel mindset, continue to pour out their bile and disrespect on women and girls? A challenge indeed. But just because we are unlikely to solve the problem completely does not mean we should not try to make a real difference right here, right now. As the commission chair, Councillor Rebecca Smith, said, a key to success is the fact that the conversation has already started.

By shining a light on male violence against women and girls through the work of the commission, Plymouth has been able to highlight the issues that need to be fixed—those that are behind the closed doors of homes across the city, common in workplaces and social spaces, evident across internet usage, and too often commonplace among our young people. Honest conversations have begun, and need to continue, as the city explores what a world without male violence against women and girls looks like, and the steps needed to achieve it. An early example is the NSPCC’s series of five films, launched in December last year, that show an intergenerational approach to preventing violence against women and girls. Another example has been the start of a local group called M.A.N. Culture, which is described as a network to challenge lad culture and promote positive attitudes among men towards women and girls.

Cultural norms can be challenged and changed. When I was first elected 30 years ago, who would have thought that we would call each other out for having a couple of drinks in the pub and trying to drive home? Drink-driving was not seen as particularly wrong in those days, but public opinion turned, legislation followed, and once acceptable behaviour became all but obsolete. That is just one example that cultural shift is possible; and on male attitudes towards women and girls, the journey has begun.

The report’s second area of focus was better support. It recommended that

“Women and girls in Plymouth are supported and empowered to report violence and abuse”,

that they should

“get the support they need, at the right time and in the right place”

and that they should not have to share their story twice. Since 2018, Plymouth has been proactively addressing violence against women and girls through the city’s domestic abuse and sexual violence partnership. The city has been implementing Home Office guidelines: putting the victim at the centre of service delivery; having a clear focus on perpetrators in order to keep victims safe; taking a strategic and systemic approach to commissioning domestic abuse services; providing locally led services; raising awareness of issues; and involving, engaging and empowering communities to design and deliver solutions to prevent violence against women and girls.

Work was already being done across the city before the commission was set up. However, since the commission’s report, work to deliver the recommendations has accelerated. The Safer Plymouth partnership, supported by the domestic abuse and sexual violence partnership board, is providing the overall leadership and direction for the citywide deliver of the commission’s recommendations, and a new strategic lead has recently been appointed, bringing to the role 20 years of experience in the sector.

Since the launch of the VAWG report in May 2022, a programme of work has been set in train across the city. Moonstone is the name of the local police force’s new stand-alone domestic abuse team, which brings together expertise and focus on cases of domestic abuse. Gemstone is the name of the sexual offences team based in the city. Early indications are that this new focus is bringing about more effective pre-charge advice, improved outcomes, improved timeliness and improved responses to victims. It is significant that tackling violence against women and girls is a priority for our excellent Devon and Cornwall police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez.

As one of 15 areas to attract Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and national lottery funding to deliver the changing futures programme, the city has been able to use the project to support the commission’s recommendations. Charities working with abuse victims have co-designed the violence against women and girls charter mark and helped to shape last November’s VAWG conference, both of which were recommended in the commission’s report but were enhanced by the approach of bringing in lived experience. The city’s specialist domestic abuse service is in the process of being re-procured—a timely activity, enabling the new service to be shaped to meet the commission’s recommendations. Much good work is under way following the commission’s report.

Thirdly, creating safe places and spaces also featured heavily in the commission’s list of recommendations. Although meeting the recommendations is obviously challenging, not least because one woman’s feeling of safety is not necessarily matched by her neighbour’s, it has been important to take action and do whatever is possible to ensure the streets of Plymouth feel safer. Funding has been secured to deliver help points at key locations for the night-time economy—essentially lamp posts with a camera installed in them. If someone feels unsafe for whatever reason, they can push the button and get connected to the CCTV team who can support them or provide help.

A night bus service has also been funded and is running each weekend over the winter to help those enjoying the night-time economy to get home safely. A mobile CCTV van providing a high visibility deterrent to tackle all forms of antisocial behaviour has been positioned to support the safety, both perceived and actual, of women and girls. It is great to see my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View joining us; he is very engaged with the whole situation.

The dynamic response project has been developed to make tactical and visible environmental improvements across the city, using referrals from the police or local councillors on behalf of residents to improve feelings of safety in hotspots. These might be simple changes such as trimming back trees to improve the lighting in dark walkways or improving the appearance of areas that have become rundown. The city is testing a single point of entry for children who require assessment, support and treatment for harmful sexual behaviour. All those measures are part of the work being done to ensure the city feels and is safer.

Finally, there is the recognition that this is an issue for us all—the whole community. Continuing to talk about and take action on violence against women and girls is crucial if Plymouth is to see the change it seeks. As a result, the city has set up a new VAWG communications working group to co-ordinate a citywide programme of activities, campaigns and events, including an annual conference, with the inaugural event held last November attracting over 200 attendees from businesses and organisations.

In addition, conversations are taking place with over 50 organisations across the city that have already signed a pledge to tackle VAWG, and to develop a violence against women and girls charter mark scheme and champions network by November 2023. As with any set of recommendations, setting up the framework for delivery is essential, and the new strategic lead is working with the domestic abuse and sexual violence partnership board to refresh the plan for the next 12 months to include the commission’s recommendations.

By setting out the work that has been done in the city since the publication of the commission’s report last year, I wanted to highlight how possible it is to tackle violence against women and girls across a city like Plymouth. Obviously, we have years of committed work ahead of us to see the cultural change we want and an end to violence against women and girls, but in Plymouth we have made a positive start. We cannot pretend it will be easy to set aside centuries of ingrained male attitudes and behaviour, but if we are to build a safer, better world for all women and children, it is essential that we commit to that task.

I will conclude by asking the Minister a few questions. I am sure she will set out how the Government have worked hard, which they have, to play their part in tackling violence against women and girls in recent years. Much of the work being done and facilitated in Plymouth has been impacted directly by Government policy and through funding made available for the work. For that we are grateful, which leads me nicely to my requests.

Additional central funding for frontline interventions would make a world of difference to our cause. Is the Minister aware that current Home Office funding is inaccessible to the majority of small local VAWG organisations in Devon and Cornwall because of the conditions attached? Could she kindly re-examine and consider that?

I have spoken about the ambition to see more work on prevention and systemic cultural change impacting all generations, and additional funding and focus are necessary to include work to change the behaviour and attitudes of men and boys. That would greatly help the city to deliver this vital work. I think we all agree that it is not all about funding; we also need to hear a clear and consistent voice on the issues from those people and institutions qualified to speak about the deeper causes of such attitudes and behaviour. I welcome the recent amendments to the Online Safety Bill that will ensure that we protect children from inappropriate sexual material online, because that is a key part of tackling violence against women and girls through culture change and education.

The commission launched its report at an event last summer attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), then a Home Office Minister, who gave a keynote speech that was extremely well received. All three city MPs were in attendance. We would like to invite the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), to visit Plymouth and see for herself the excellent work that we are undertaking. I congratulate the commission on its work and report, and look forward to supporting its leadership on this vital issue over the years ahead.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I do not wish to set a formal time limit, but speeches of around six minutes would allow everybody to have their full say.

16:46

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is, as ever, a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. It is important for me to speak in a debate about an issue that impacts communities across the UK. It is not isolated to Plymouth or Pontypridd but impacts us all. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter), and I congratulate him on securing this important and timely debate. Having spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), I know that violence against women and girls is a very active issue in Plymouth specifically, so it is important that we have time to debate the issue in detail.

I will keep my comments brief and fairly general, in the knowledge that much of what I say sadly applies, as I have said, to cities, towns and communities throughout the country and across the world, and is not limited to Plymouth. We all know that violence against women and girls can take many different forms, which can include, but are certainly not limited to, physical aggression, coercive control or harassment. In recent years, we have been reminded of the stark realities of what it is like to be a young woman in modern Britain. The stats speak for themselves: in 2019, the number of female homicide victims in England and Wales reached its highest levels since 2006—up 10% on the previous year.

But violence against women and girls is not just about murders or homicides; there are many more issues at play that have led us to the point where male violence against women and girls—as the hon. Member for South West Devon said, let us call it what it is—is too often treated as a societal issue that is a given rather than one that can actively be prevented. For example, there are significant issues with our criminal justice system, which has historically failed women and girls, as the Government have known for many years. I need only point colleagues to the brilliant Baroness Kennedy, who forensically examined the issue of discrimination in her incredible series of books “Eve Was Framed” and “Eve Was Shamed”.

Of course, many of the real problems around violence that women and girls experience every day on our streets, at home, online, at work and even in our schools never even make it to the police—let alone the court system. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on perpetrators of domestic abuse, it is clear to me that we need a long-term, whole-system response to ending violence against women that needs to provide justice and protection to survivors, deliver effective prevention, and tackle the societal attitudes, inequality and discrimination that underpin the abuse faced by women and girls.

That brings me to what I consider one of the most significant issues that underpins violence against women and girls more generally: misogyny. Colleagues may be aware that last week I had an Adjournment debate on the worrying rise of misogyny that many teachers are reporting among pupils in our schools. I think we all recognise that much of the misogyny is not new; perhaps there is scope for a separate debate on the history of sexism and misogyny, but that is certainly a matter for many other days.

Colleagues across the House have already made reference to, and must acknowledge, the role that social media plays in spreading misogyny online for all to see. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for South West Devon about the prominent so-called influencer Andrew Tate. I have made my position on him very clear in previous comments. Having done so, I have now received a barrage of misogynistic, aggressive and sexist messages across a variety of platforms, but that will not deter me. In my role as shadow Minister for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, we have recently concluded the Third Reading of the Online Safety Bill, which is a very important piece of legislation. Sadly, I, like the End Violence Against Women Coalition and Glitch the charity, believe that in its current form the Bill will fail to properly protect women and girls online. The systems and business models of many platforms often actively promote such controversial content, which gains significant views and therefore boosts their advertising revenue, but when it comes to keeping people safe now and in future generations, there must be a balance.

Something that I found particularly stark—I am sure this is the case in Plymouth and across the country—is the sheer number of young people I speak to when visiting schools in my constituency who aspire to be like those social media influencers. It is for that reason that we should not underestimate their influence on young people. As we know, the links between misogyny and more traditional forms of violence against women and girls are all too easy to see.

Ultimately, the Government have work to do to reassure young people, their parents, teachers and other trusted professionals that they are taking the issue seriously. While I proudly sat on the Domestic Abuse Public Bill Committee alongside the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), it feels as though that piece of legislation is failing to capture the broad range of harms, both obvious and more discreet, that are specific to women and girls. Part of the Government’s approach must be to consider the power and influence that the online sphere can have on the victims’ ability to seek help and in preventing perpetrators from being exposed to damaging material online, or directly fed it through dangerous algorithms. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that point. I hope she will feed back my comments to her colleagues in other Departments. Only with a cross-departmental approach will we truly go some way to tackle violence against women and girls at its root.

16:51

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my longstanding friend, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter), on securing this debate.

The abduction and murder of Bobbi-Anne McLeod in November 2021 brought the issue of violence against women and girls into focus in Plymouth and across Devon and Cornwall. No one can fail to be impacted by hearing about a woman who simply left home to catch a bus and was subjected to such savagery. That followed an incident only a few months earlier when a man driven by the poisonous ideology of the incel movement shot dead five people in Keyham.

Both incidents brought fear to the streets. They brought to the fore our need to tackle male violence against women and girls, not just in the city of my birth but across our country. I grew up in Plymouth. I was born in Freedom Fields hospital and I attended Hele’s School, first meeting a then councillor and newly selected parliamentary candidate, my hon. Friend, back in March 1992. It was painful to see my home town going through what happened in 2021. But for a short distance, it could have been my own family, who live there, who were affected by one of those incidents.

As a then Home Office Minister, I welcomed the way the city came together to console the bereaved, support the community and resolve to make a difference. It was particularly welcome to see the political unity in that work, which included the city council, the police and crime commissioner and the local Members of Parliament, irrespective of their political party.

As has been said, these issues are not unique to Plymouth. The poison that is the incel movement is infecting too many a mind on social media, and too many women in Torbay have a story of harassment or violence that they could share. That is why it was particularly welcome to see the work of the Plymouth violence against women and girls commission, ably and effectively chaired by Councillor Rebecca Smith, who is well known to many MPs across Devon as a champion of her community in Plymstock and for her work in tackling the issue. The commission produced a report following a process of listening to those affected by violence. Its conclusions represent a welcome list of actions that can be taken to tackle the challenge and make a difference to it. It will therefore particularly interesting to hear the Minister’s thoughts on them, and how they will be embedded as part of the long-term approach, especially the recommendations about a peninsula-wide domestic violence perpetrator strategy.

It is also important to reflect on the approach taken across Devon and Cornwall, which will affect outcomes in Plymouth. Our excellent local police and crime commissioner and Torbay resident, Alison Hernandez, had made tackling violence, including serious violence against women and girls, one of her four priorities in her policing plan. The £4 million serious violence prevention programme, which is part of that, is welcome, as is the investment in victim and perpetrator programmes.

I note that the investment package that the Home Office has provided as part of the £1.1 million safer streets package for Torquay includes a specific element for tackling violence against women and girls by making our town centre safer. That also works alongside community groups, such as Torbay Street Pastors, which specifically work to provide a safe place on the harbourside where people can go in the evenings to wait for a taxi or be picked up by parents, or if they are under the influence and just need somewhere to sit safely.

It is welcome to see some of the progress that has happened, such as the provision of independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers to support victims through the criminal justice system. All too often, offenders and perpetrators rely on the fact that people will not want to go through the whole process, so they can continue their pattern of offending, creating new victims. The events that prompted attention to the issue in Plymouth, along with Devon and Cornwall more widely, were tragic. They showed the outcomes that can happen when poisonous attitudes, such as those of incels, are able to spread and infect minds. Yet they also show the best of how a city and a community can come together and react to such horror by looking to support each other and vowing to make a difference for the future. The people of Plymouth are doing that, and they deserve all our support as they take the work forward.

16:56

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter)—the Member for Plymouth during the 1990s—for setting the scene so well and for leading the debate. It seems that all too often we hear stories in the news about violent, sexual or domestic attacks on women and girls. First of all, we are all here to support the hon. Gentleman. I know that I do not represent Plymouth, but I represent an area in Strangford, Northern Ireland that has, I am sorry to say, the worst levels of attacks on women and girls in all of the United Kingdom—they are horrendous. With great pain, I want to add my support on this issue.

I am of a generation—I suspect you are as well, Mr Pritchard, as well as the hon. Member for South West Devon. You are probably a couple of years younger than me, but I suspect not by very much. We were a generation that had the utmost respect for women. I am from a generation that would open a door for a lady, stand and let her pass by. I am from a generation that would give up a seat for a lady or girl. I am of a generation that respected ladies—that is just me, but I suspect there are many others from my generation who are the same. Social media, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) mentioned, has destroyed the attitude of some young people towards girls and ladies. I find it quite horrendous.

I understand the debate is centred around violence against women and girls in Plymouth, but I want to give the Northern Irish experience where it has proven to be extreme. In 2021, Northern Ireland was named the most dangerous place for women in Europe. Only Romania matches our grim toll across the whole of Europe of 0.43 killings per 100,000 inhabitants, which is three times that of England and Wales. Women and girls in Northern Ireland are disproportionately affected by violence, abuse and intimidation. From April 2021 to March 2022 in Northern Ireland, women made up 78% of all victims of sexual crimes—my goodness, these stats are terrible—68% of domestic abuse, 64% of harassment and 95% of stalking crimes. I know the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), will speak, and she will know the stats. It is no joy for me to stand here and say that.

Most notably and very recently, we have heard of the news of the murder of Natalie McNally. I give my sincere sympathies to the family for all they are going through. She was a 32-year-old woman from Lurgan who was 15 weeks pregnant with a baby boy. She was stabbed multiple times, losing her life and that of her unborn baby too, sadly, and still nobody has been charged with the murder. There are countless reports of women being abused, assaulted and murdered, and the volume of stories is just unheard of. I deal in my office with cases of domestic abuse every week—society seems to reflect that unfortunately—and we have to deal with cases of verbal and physical abuse as well. The hon. Member for South West Devon and the initiative he is taking in Plymouth are something to stand by.

I understand that organisations and charities in Plymouth have embarked on 16 days of activism to raise awareness of and prevent violence against women and girls, and that a new men’s group aims to ensure that boys and men play their part, too. How much do we need that work in society today, not just in Plymouth but everywhere? Such steps are crucial and they must be taken to give women a voice and reassure them that there is protection for them out there.

There has been a significant rise in the number of cases involving violence against women in the last few years. Historically, that has been because men feel—wrongly—that they can get away with these things, as women are not encouraged to report them. Everyone in this House, including those who are in Westminster Hall today, is here to speak up for women—for ladies—and for girls, and to make it very clear that there are not enough arrests or convictions. The figures are severely lacking.

I conclude by thanking the hon. Member for South West Devon for leading this very important and timely debate. I will take note of the initiative in Plymouth for us back home; it might be something that we can do with as well. I have hope that we, as policymakers in this place, can play our part to raise awareness of these crimes and do more to ensure that women and girls feel comfortable and reassured about coming forward. That is what I am about; I think that is what everybody here is about.

17:00

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) for securing the debate, which allows me to give my very strong opinions on this topic on behalf of my constituents in Redditch, as well—of course—to express my sympathy for the victims of the horrendous events in Plymouth. I served as a Minister in the Home Office shortly afterwards and it impacted many of us deeply to see the situation unfolding in Plymouth.

However, what is a real credit to the spirit of Plymouth is the way the city has come together and responded through the practical measures of the commission that my hon. Friend mentioned. Those practical measures are extremely encouraging and a great example for the rest of us across the rest of the country to follow to tackle this pervasive, absolutely pernicious and—sadly—endemic issue.

I would just like to ask the Home Office Minister who is in the Chamber today to respond to a few points. The Home Office has done an extremely good job in responding to the strategy to end violence against women and girls, but I think that we would all be interested to learn a bit more about some of the ongoing work, including how she is pushing it forward and how we can see the measures rolled out to protect more women and girls.

The first issue that I want to highlight is the importance of prevention. Of course we all know the emotional and psychological impacts of crimes of violence against women and girls on the victims. However, there is also the economic impact. Home Office statistics have set out that the costs of violence against women and girls are in the region of £66 billion for the whole economy, although those are quite old figures. I am sure that the Minister knows of more recent ones. It is absolutely vital that we tackle the issue for the sake of our entire economy.

Will the Minister update us on the work that she is leading on prevention? Specifically, I mean the domestic abuse prevention orders and the domestic abuse prevention notices; the electronic tagging, the provisions for which were introduced in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; the ongoing work on the register of perpetrators to ensure that we monitor and track perpetrators and keep women and girls safe; and any work that she is doing on the mixed picture on stalking prevention orders. We know that some areas are fantastic at rolling these orders out; others are not so good. Many stalkers are being missed and are slipping through the cracks, so we really need to ramp up this work and use these powers to keep these people monitored and keep their victims safe.

Secondly, there is the incel phenomenon. May I bring the House’s attention to the very good work of Laura Bates, who has sone extensive research on that topic? It is a relatively new subject—I say “new”, but I mean in terms of our understanding it and making policy about it. What should the policy response be? Is it right to look at it through the terrorism lens? Should we have a bespoke response? Of course, we know that it is proliferating online. The Online Safety Bill introduces a number of measures to strengthen the response of the online platforms, but is the Minister concerned about the phenomenon and, if she is, what more can she do from a policy perspective so that we really understand why these young men are being radicalised in this way and committing such horrendous acts?

Thirdly, we have done a fantastic job in the Home Office of kicking off the Enough public information campaign, which I know is having an impact across the country. Will the Minister update us on it? Does she plan to roll it out more widely? Does she plan to repeat it? Does she plan to roll out the campaign across the transport network, because we know a lot of crimes of violence against women and girls occur on buses and trains? Can she update us on the Home Office’s work on prevention and what works? We all want to prevent these crimes taking place.

We need to understand the psychology of perpetrators, who are mostly men, although some women commit such crimes. We know there are interventions that work and, thankfully, prevent lives being lost and trauma inflicted on women and girls. We need to understand that. If the interventions work, we need to roll them out widely, so that every area knows what to introduce and what is right for their area.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon set out some good interventions that are clearly working in his area, but we need to gather that data so that every single local authority has no excuse but to come to the Home Office and ask for funding if needed. That funding should be available so that local authorities can roll it out and know that it will make a difference.

Finally, will the Minister update us on the strategic policing requirement, which was a commitment that we in the Home Office made on the back of the Policing, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022? A lot of work has gone on in the Home Office, and it is important to bring together strategic law enforcement at a national level, so that police forces are working and know what to do, so that we can tackle this and keep more women and girls safe.

17:06

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) on securing this important debate. The other person I would like to thank is Eva Woods, the youth MP for Peterborough. I thank her for briefing me fully on this issue and contributing to my speech.

As has been said by other hon. Members, violence against women and girls is not just limited to Plymouth, but it is inspiring to hear of the good work that is going on in Devon and Plymouth. It is inspiring me to think about what I can do in my city of Peterborough, working with Eva and others. Unfortunately, violence against women and girls is widespread across the country, and Peterborough is not immune.

Sexual harassment in schools and colleges was pointed out in the 2022 UK Youth Parliament elections as the top concern of Peterborough’s young people. Eva received the testimonies of women and girls in the constituency’s schools who, on a daily basis, received sexualised comments and contacts intended to humiliate, intimidate and control. Across the UK, controlling women through such behaviour is rife, and it is visible in Peterborough. One of the biggest employers of young people is the service industry, a sector in which an enormous proportion of the female staff report intimidation by customers and even employers.

In public spaces, including Central Park in my constituency, women and girls report feeling unwelcome and unsafe as soon as darkness falls. It is saddening that incident figures from the police do not always correspond to the levels of threat that constituents have reported directly to Eva. Frequently, victims do not even feel supported to report their experiences, through fear of seeing no consequences to their aggressor, or simply thinking that their experience of violence is so minor that it is not worth police time. We need an emergency response to sexual harassment in schools and places of education. It should be the duty of every Member to make clear that a culture of violence, intimidation and control of women is not tolerated in their constituencies.

The example of Plymouth has inspired me to do something similar in my city. In fact, I already have two councillors in mind, and I texted them during the debate to see whether they would get involved and chair a similar commission to the one in Plymouth. I know that those councillors, working with me and our youth MP, can make a real difference in a place such as Peterborough.

17:09

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I know we are quite tight for time. I want to show massive respect to the hon. Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) and all those who he represented who are working collaboratively in Plymouth. He said that doing that was one of the commission’s recommendations. I have to say, given the kind of reports that get written, it is a delight to hear in this building of a recommendation actually being fulfilled. It was good to hear that this place needed to be involved.

There are many brilliant organisations in Plymouth, but I want to pay specific tribute to one that I mention very regularly when I talk about violence against women and girls general: Trevi House, which is one of only two places in the entire country where women can go with their children into substance misuse rehabilitation. I cannot express how important it is that that exists. Indeed, it is to our country’s shame that there are really only two, or possibly three, places in the country where that is available, because it is hugely important to preventing what the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) talked about. I know that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and his wife are heavily involved with Trevi; Plymouth should be really proud of that jewel in the crown.

That said, in recent years we have obviously seen some devastating cases of violence. Others have talked about the heartbreaking murder of Bobbi-Anne, whose family described her as

“a beautiful girl who lit up our lives”

and whose death meant that their

“lives will never be the same”.

The inquest into the deaths of Stephen Washington, Kate Shepherd, Maxine Davison, Lee Martyn and three-year-old Sophie Martyn continues as we speak, so it would not be right to go into that too much. However, incel ideology—which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and others, including the hon. Member for South West Devon, who made a very strong and actually progressive case in that area—was undoubtedly involved in that particular case.

It is absolutely lovely to hear the fervour and the care that Plymouth has taken, but I am afraid to say that it will only ever be able to go so far on its own merit while it, like everywhere else in the country, relies on the infrastructure built for victims of violence—[Interruption.]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House, so I am suspending the sitting. There may be more than one vote. For the first vote we will suspend for a maximum of 15 minutes and then for 10 minutes thereafter, but I will continue once the mover of the motion and the two Front Benchers are here, so hon. Members should please be as quick as possible.

17:12

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

17:49

On resuming—

[Jess Phillips]

As I was saying, Plymouth, like other places in the country, relies on the national infrastructure.

I wish to ask the Government a few questions. Last year, the Government committed to making violence against women and girls a national policing priority, as the hon. Member for Redditch said, yet here we are, nine months later, and it has been reported that nothing has happened. Will the Government confirm that nine months after Ministers announced it, they have not yet made prioritising violence against women and girls a strategic policing requirement?

I could talk about what has happened in the past nine months, but I do not even need to stretch to then—I will just go back over the past few weeks. Yesterday, we heard that a man with a history of violence was able to sexually assault and murder law graduate Zara Aleena after mistakes were made by probation staff. The chief inspector of probation, Justin Russell, found that McSweeney had been wrongly assessed as medium risk by staff who were under “mounting pressure”. Mr Russell claimed:

“In this particular case we found a very heavily overloaded senior probation officer supervising a probation officer who had 50% more workload than they should have had.”

I could go on. This week, the latest domestic abuse stats from the Crown Prosecution Service show a crisis once more, I am afraid to say. From 2022, prosecutions are down 9.6%, while convictions are down 9%. Convictions in the latest quarter were just 9,587; in the same quarter in 2019, there were 12,467 convictions. That is a 23% fall. In 2019, there were 16,257 completed prosecutions; today, that figure is 12,672. That is down 22%. Those disgracefully low statistics demonstrate the Government’s failure to act, meaning that victims are kept in danger and perpetrators are left in our communities, in our homes and on our streets.

I am sure we will all have seen the media reports about the police over the past few weeks. The Met alone is investigating 1,000 domestic or sexual abuse claims involving 800 of its officers. Last year, the Centre for Women’s Justice super-complaint against the Met found significant inconsistencies in how cases of domestic abuse perpetrated by police were dealt with. The Home Office is responsible for the police. That is where the buck stops. Why are police officers accused of rape or domestic abuse not immediately suspended, as Labour is urging for? The public are astounded that this is not the case already.

Where is the promised domestic homicide sentencing review of the deaths of women, like the women killed in Plymouth? We are a year in the waiting. Where is the harms report from the family court review? Again, we are more than two years in the waiting. Where is the perpetrator strategy? Charge rates for rape have dropped to a shameful 1.5%—a drop of two thirds over the past seven years. Where is the action?

Plymouth has shown grit and joined-up thinking. I would like to see the same from this place.

17:54

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) for bringing forward this debate on such an important issue, for highlighting the work of the Plymouth Violence Against Women and Girls Commission and for sharing the learning of the commission, to which I pay tribute for its work. I also thank those who made considerable journeys to come here, such as Councillor Rebecca Smith and Eva Woods, who has come from Peterborough. Much work is done on a community level, and that is very much how this issue will move forward.

Work in this sphere starts at the community and is also led at a national level. There is personal responsibility, too. It is only with all the sectors working together that fundamental change will be achieved. It is not just from the centre down; the things that work work with the community and individuals grappling those issues. I pay tribute to those locally elected people and those working very hard in Plymouth, as well as the Members who have always worked very hard in this place.

I reiterate at the outset how important tackling violence against women and girls is to me and to this Government. Indeed, the Prime Minister made that clear in his new year speech this month. We need a change of culture, and that is what this Government are doing. Successive Governments have failed to grip the issue, and I am pleased that this Government are gripping it.

The David Carrick case has underscored yet again why this work is critical. It is a horrific set of circumstances. It is tragic and dreadful, but I welcome the opportunity to use it to move forward. I echo the Home Secretary’s words of tribute to victims for their extraordinary strength and courage in coming forward. We must not only deal with perpetrators but encourage victims and survivors to come forward—with an onus on the perpetrators, but listening to the victims. For the victims to have suffered as they did at the hands of a police officer is almost unthinkable, and my thoughts are with them.

I express my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Bobbi-Anne McLeod, whose life was so tragically cut short. What happened has understandably shocked us all, but particularly those in the community of Plymouth. It is shocking to the core. Whether in Plymouth or anywhere else around the country, we must use every tool at our disposal to ensure that law-abiding people can feel safe both inside and outside the home. That is a major priority for me and the Government as a whole.

Several Members raised the Keyham shooting. The inquest into those tragic events began just last week, so it is inappropriate for me to say anything other than that my thoughts and deepest sympathies remain with everyone involved in that matter.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon for bringing forward the debate and to all those people who have worked alongside him on this quite lengthy journey. It is a good cross-party piece of work, and change in society works only if it is from the grassroots up. It is encouraging to see cross-party work at that level. The words that resonated with me were:

“We are all in this together.”

Those were well-thought words, and I thank him for them.

The Trevi organisation and First Light were also mentioned. In my previous job, I had dealings with Trevi, and I travelled down to visit the area. I have always been immensely impressed with the organisation. It is just the sort of organisation that needs support. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), speaking for the Opposition, also rightly raised it. I pay tribute to it for its work.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon was absolutely right that we need cultural change. These issues are deeply rooted in our society. We also need better support. The recommendations of the commission rang very true. The work of the Safer Plymouth Partnership, Moonstone and Operation Gemstone are all important, and I pay tribute to them for their work. It is an issue for us all—that is quite right. The violence against women and girls strategy and the domestic abuse work are fundamental, and I am pleased that more than 50 organisations around the city are delivering work on the issue.

My hon. Friend asked about additional funding and concerns that small groups are finding it difficult to access funds. That is exactly why the Home Office, with a lot of careful thought, is providing for consortia applications, so that those with expertise can assist those with lesser expertise to move in the right direction to secure funding. We need cultural change, as the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) reflected.

In relation to understanding why these things happen, the Home Office has undertaken a lot of research. In relation to the amount of research generally that is engaged, I am genuinely flabbergasted at the effort, expense and thought that has gone into policy making in the Department. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch has witnessed that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon said, we need to be a clear voice talking to the deeper causes of what happened. The Online Safety Bill will be amended in the Lords to reflect even greater concerns than when it first appeared before the House of Commons Chamber. The amendment will further strengthen it. It is a seminal piece of legislation and I am proud that it is this Government that is bringing it through. I do not accept the narrative that it is in any way inadequate. Legislation in this place rightly evolves and moves forward. That is why we have the House of Lords and the amendment process.

I thank the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for her contribution. She mentioned physical violence and coercive control, and that is at the heart of her work as chair of the APPG on perpetrators of domestic abuse. The Government are rightly shifting their focus to perpetrators, and a lot of money is being spent by the police as well as with stakeholders to ensure that work bears fruit. Historically, there has been an emphasis on the victim. We know that from offences such as rape and all forms of violence against women and girls, and against men. We want to shift the focus from victims to perpetrators. We must change societal attitudes and stop misogyny. I agree with her on that, but I do think that the Online Safety Bill is groundbreaking and will be improved.

This Government introduced the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which the hon. Lady mentioned. I do not accept that it has failed to catch online harms. There will be a focus on using industry to assist in this policy area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) made a valuable contribution. The death of Bobbi-Anne McLeod was fundamental in bringing about local change. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s interventions; he mentioned the local police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, and the work that she does. The work done in the south-west on Operation Soteria has been groundbreaking. All these things come together. There will be a moment when there will be change and I think Plymouth is fundamental to that change.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminded us of the dreadful situation in a part of our country and a part of the Union, Northern Ireland, and the very sad case of the lady who was attacked when pregnant, resulting in her death and the death of her unborn child. That is tragic. That is why we need a strong process in relation to violence against women and girls.

I do not need to go back to the great work that my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch did when she was in the job that I now have. She raised some important questions and wanted answers to them. In relation to the register, we are looking at the options. In relation to the specialist orders—the domestic abuse protection orders—we are continuing to work very hard in policy development. I have witnessed that for myself. We are finalising pilot sites, so there is progress in this policy area.

In relation to prevention, my hon. Friend is bang on—to use a colloquialism. The new statutory guidance on relationships, sex and health education is being changed and improved, and my personal view is that there needs to be better training and better education. If we want to change things, we have to get people while they are young, thinking about life and growing up, so I would like to see more work in that space. That is being done with the guidance to be taught in schools.

On transport champions, which several Members mentioned, I recently had the opportunity to speak to the British Transport police. We have appointed transport champions, who have given a set of recommendations that the Government are considering.

[Jess Phillips]

As the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) asked, what is happening with the strategic policing requirement? I note that the Minister has not answered that question, which both I and the hon. Member for Redditch asked.

[Miss Dines]

That is being actively worked on. Violence against women and girls will be added in due course, and if I have anything to do with it, it will be sooner rather than later. It was on my list of questions to get to.

I want to try to mention everyone, because everyone who has contributed to the debate has worked hard in the subject area and I want to acknowledge them all. When there is cross-party work, things really work.

Why do young men become radicalised? I suggest that one of the items in that complex picture is the platform that the internet has given young men to express their feelings without having to go out to meet people. There are lots of psychological reasons for that, and research is being commissioned.

I mentioned the strategic policing requirement, in respect of which a lot of work is being done. The police have to be part of this story, so I am pleased with the work of Maggie Blyth in progressing us forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow), and Eva Woods as the Member of Youth Parliament for Peterborough, are very much an illustration of how this work can multiply across the whole nation. The Government can do their best to steer changes and pass laws, but fundamental change comes from individuals and communities. I am proud of the work that my hon. Friend is doing in Peterborough.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, has worked very hard on this issue. She rightly talked about the work of Trevi House and said that it is lovely to hear what Plymouth is doing, and I could not agree more. Statistics for convictions are simply not good enough. Successive Governments have had difficulties, and I support the work of the deputy Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to create movement in this policy area. The increase in police officers is a start, but we need the whole culture to change.

I would say much more if I had time, but let me say that the Government do not lack any commitment on this issue. We are committed to tackling violence against women and girls—and boys—which is why we published the cross-Government strategy on tackling violence against women and girls in 2021. It must not be forgotten that £230 million is being spent on the tackling domestic abuse plan, which we published last year. That is groundbreaking, and more than any previous Government have spent. We have made significant progress in pushing out a variety of ways to spend that money. Just one example is the “Enough” communications campaign. It was groundbreaking: almost half a million people engaged with it. It shows a need for change, and that change will happen.

To sum up, much work is being done in Plymouth. The Government are supporting that work by awarding significant amounts of money to the Devon and Cornwall police and crime commissioner. Through the police uplift programme, Devon and Cornwall police have an additional 313 officers. The University of Plymouth has been awarded £670,000 for direct work to make the streets safe. There are now local CCTV vans. There is local educational provision and training, and there is the “safe spaces Plymouth” initiative. I could say much more if I had time. In general, the Government and I are committed. I thank every person who contributed to the debate.

18:07

[Sir Gary Streeter]

I thank the Minister for her response and thank everyone who contributed to the debate. It is worth sharing that when the three local Members of Parliament had a briefing—which was done individually by Zoom—on the killing of Bobbi-Anne McLeod, after 15 minutes I had to ask the police officers to stop. I just could not take any more. Maybe it is because I am a grandfather of two beautiful girls; I do not know, but that is what we are talking about here. We are talking about a beautiful young life, snatched away by someone who was influenced by the internet.

There is no politics in this: we are all in this together. I am so pleased that Plymouth has put in place the commissioner and is leading the way. I hope that other parts of the country will follow. I will say one thing to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who we are so fond of. He said that perhaps attitudes 30 or 40 years ago among our generation—we are the same age, more or less—were different. I am not sure about that. We are the Jimmy Savile generation. We are the Rolf Harris generation. So much was hidden. At least now it is out in the open, but we still have to deal with it. We have a long journey ahead, so we just have to commit ourselves to this task.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of violence against women and girls in Plymouth.

18:08

Sitting adjourned.