House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
It is going to be a busy day for the Department for Business and Trade team. We are going to be spending a lot of time together today, Mr Speaker, and I very much look forward to it.
We are improving how businesses find, log into and use digital Government services. Better digital services—increasingly joined-up services—can reduce administrative burdens and save businesses time and money. That is why we have pledged to reduce the administrative burdens on business by 25%, and digital will play a key role in that.
Gurinder Singh Josan
Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, yet research shows that the average small business cannot start its real work until 2.36 pm on a Wednesday because of the time lost to administrative tasks. My own experience is that business owners need to engage regularly with various departments and agencies for all manner of reasons, and proving their identity can be a time-consuming task, so will the Secretary of State consider introducing a unique business passport—effectively, a unique digital ID for businesses—to cut administrative burdens and free up small businesses to deliver growth?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend and I share a zeal for using digital to transform the relationship between Government and those who use services. When I was the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, I was very proud to work with the Government Digital Service team and see how they are transforming the ability of individuals to interact with Government. We need to have the same zeal for transforming how businesses interact with Government, and I can assure him that a programme of work is going on with my Department to make sure that that is the case.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I welcome the keen interest in this issue that my hon. Friend has shown. I and my officials have regular discussions with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, including on the publication of the draft secondary ticketing Bill in the second Session of this Parliament. Consumer enforcement is a key strand of that work, and the CMA is the UK’s main consumer enforcer. As such, we have naturally discussed its important role in the ticketing ecosystem and consumer protection more broadly. In addition, last week the Government introduced the Sporting Events Bill. This will make the unauthorised resale of tickets for major sporting events that meet the conditions in the Bill a criminal offence.
Dr Huq
Ending ticketing scandals was a manifesto pledge prompted by the Oasis surge-pricing scandal, but it appears only in draft form in the King’s Speech. Peak gig-going season is upon us—maybe even for you, Mr Speaker, with your Motown habit—as is a cost of living crisis. [Interruption.] We all know about it and love you for it, Mr Speaker.
Dr Huq
Indeed—reflections of you. Will Ministers meet me to discuss the solution? My meticulously researched, widely backed ballot Bill from 2024 is ready-made and ready to go. It deals with this issue by among other things banning the bots that hog tickets for resale, so that we can stop this rip-off without delay.
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on this issue; I know that it has been close to her heart for many years. That is why we have committed to publishing a draft secondary ticketing Bill, as set out in the background to the King’s Speech. That shows our continued commitment on the issue and we are pressing ahead on work that will allow us to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows. The benefit of the draft Bill is that it will allow scrutiny from parliamentarians and sector experts to ensure that we are getting the approach right. I thank her and hope that she can hear my commitment today.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
As artists and songwriters gather today for the Ivor Novello awards, fans across the country are still being ripped off by ticket touts, despite the Prime Minister’s promise to act “as soon as possible”. It is incredibly disappointing that the Government have proposed only a draft ticket tout ban Bill in the King’s Speech. Does the Minister accept that any further delay simply benefits those touts and secondary ticketing platforms, and will she give us a date for when proper legislation will be brought forward to protect fans?
Kate Dearden
The hon. Member will know that since the Government published our response to the consultation on the resale of live event tickets, we have been working tirelessly to prepare new measures—exactly to his point—to tackle those ticket touts who take advantage of real fans who want to see their favourite bands and artists. That is why the next step is to introduce a draft Bill in this Session. That will enable parliamentary scrutiny and allow us to draw on the expertise of key stakeholders to ensure that our legislation is truly effective and enforceable, because a well-functioning ticket resale market can play such an important role in enabling those who cannot attend an event to give someone else the opportunity to go in their place.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
The Minister responsible for small business and economic transformation, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), met Royal Mail’s chief executive on 12 May to discuss its service improvement plan. I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning on these issues in her constituency vigorously and that has been heard loud and clear. Royal Mail has told my Department that Middleton delivery office in my hon. Friend’s constituency is fully staffed and delivers to most addresses six days a week. I know that she will be scrutinising that and might well have a bit more to say on that now.
Mrs Blundell
Last week, I held a meeting at the fantastic Burnside community centre in Langley with representatives from Royal Mail and constituents, including those who have had to deal with a substandard postal service resulting in crucial correspondence arriving weeks late, if at all. To many people in Heywood and Middleton North, that is a direct result of a national asset being sold off to a private company focused on profit rather than quality of service. If that level of service continues, what further options is the Secretary of State considering to hold Royal Mail to account, and where necessary will the Government step in and force the changes that my constituents need to see?
Peter Kyle
I said that my hon. Friend was a great advocate for her residents on this issue; she is proving so once again. I can reassure her that the Government have secured a commitment from Royal Mail’s owners to prevent the payment of dividends until service levels improve. That will be a tangible impact on the business unless service levels improve. I have also been involved in discussions with Royal Mail’s owners and the Communication Workers Union to get a deal that can start work on the universal service offering and modernisation reform package for the company, as well as one that tackles pay equalisation. They have reached a deal and it is now out to CWU members. I hope that that will be the foundation for real improvement into the long term. It shows this Government’s active industrial strategy that get things done.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
We have just heard from the Secretary of State about our active industrial strategy. This question is timely, because we are one year on from setting out our industrial strategy. We have announced our British industrial competitiveness scheme, expanding its scope to support 10,000 businesses with their energy costs, a £500 million sovereign AI fund, and the creation of 19 new technical excellence colleges, giving opportunities for young people across the country.
Chris Hinchliff
If climate breakdown accelerates, many of the international supply chains that we have relied upon for essential goods and resources for far too long will cease to exist. We are sleepwalking towards a situation in which this country can no longer guarantee the basic needs of its people. At that point, no amount of AI slop or casino capitalism will be an alternative to actually making things. Before ecological collapse makes it too late, will Ministers use their industrial strategy to pivot our economy back to producing more of the essentials that we use in our daily lives?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend knows that when he talks about reindustrialisation and improving the manufacturing base of this economy he finds a very sympathetic ear in me. Certainly, we have all seen over the course of the past few years, through multiple crises, how the resilience of global supply chains has been reduced. Increasing the share of our economy that is dedicated to manufacturing will serve the ecological aims that he has mentioned, improve our national resilience and provide good, well-paid and high-productivity manufacturing jobs in our industrial heartlands across the whole of the country.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The largest sector of the manufacturing base is food manufacturing, but it was deliberately left out of the industrial strategy. As a consequence, food manufacturing is now facing rising input costs, especially from energy, and is unable to get the assistance that the Minister just referred to. The Food and Drink Federation thinks that food price inflation could get to 9% or 10% this year. With the benefit of hindsight, do the Government think that it was possibly a mistake to exclude food manufacturing from the industrial strategy?
Chris McDonald
At the time that the industrial strategy was established, the Government carefully selected those sectors that had the greatest growth potential for the economy, but we were also extremely clear in communicating that that does not mean that sectors that were not identified as having high growth potential were not important—quite the contrary. Our food manufacturing sector is incredibly important, and the Government are acutely aware of the issues around food prices. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may well have more to say on that subject in a statement later today.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
The future of the car industry is in electric and automated vehicles, and the west midlands and the UK have always been leaders in car manufacturing across the world. Can the Minister say more about what we are doing to protect the industry and ensure that its future lies in the UK?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right that automotive manufacturing is a key part of our advanced manufacturing sector, and she has done a huge amount here in the House to champion the sector in her area nationally. One area we are focusing on is supporting the sector with the development of new technology, such as autonomous vehicles; last week, the Secretary of State signed a memorandum of understanding with Wayve. We are determined that the UK will become Europe’s first market for digital driving services, driving the market and driving our automotive industry.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
In my constituency, I have one of the last remaining chlorine production sites, Vynova. On a recent visit, I was told that its future is uncertain because of production costs—it is a highly energy-intensive industry. Does the Minister agree that it is strategically critical that the UK has its own chlorine production, and will he meet me to discuss the future of the site?
Chris McDonald
I commend the hon. Lady for championing the chemicals sector in the House. I am extremely concerned about the sector, including chlorine, because it is vital to the UK economy, as she says. This Government are taking action through our industrial strategy to focus on heavy industry and energy-intensive industries. I might have an opportunity to speak with her later today, if that would be of interest.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
The Government’s industrial strategy rightly states that improving skills in the construction sector is essential to keeping our country building. In fact, on page 44, there is a commitment to invest
“£625 million to train…60,000 more skilled workers”.
It has been one year since publication, so how many more skilled workers have entered the construction workforce as a result of that commitment?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the importance of construction skills. In fact, on a recent visit to a construction skills academy in east London, I had the opportunity to do a bit of tiling myself—that has come in quite handy at home, actually—and to talk to some of the young people, who realise that they are developing skills for life. The Government are incredibly committed to that. The hon. Gentleman may have missed it, but he will be pleased to know that the Government have announced five new technical excellence colleges to help young people to get those skills for life in the construction sector.
Gareth Davies
I am grateful for the update on the Minister’s tiling skills, but I did not hear a number showing how he is making progress on the £625 million commitment. Perhaps he can write to me on how they are making progress. One of the existing schemes that supports training is the Construction Industry Training Board, but many industry leaders believe that it is no longer working or delivering. Construction firms are facing significant bills as a direct result of the levy, all while the CITB is reducing training provision. What is the Minister’s view of the CITB, and has he engaged with the construction industry to discuss it?
Chris McDonald
Yes, indeed. I engage with the construction industry extremely regularly as the co-chair of the Construction Leadership Council, and skills, along with health and safety, are absolutely at the top of our agenda. The views of the construction industry on the Construction Industry Training Board are discussed there and decided there by the industry.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Government announced their intention in the industrial strategy to use their procurement power to shape markets for innovation in the longer term. Tech start-ups in my constituency complain that the process of getting Government contracts is slow, risk-averse and structurally biased in its financial viability tests and paperwork requirements towards incumbents and US suppliers. As one of them put it to me, no one gets sacked for buying IBM. That surely prevents the Government from achieving their goal of greater innovation. What conversations is the Minister having with his Cabinet Office counterparts to ensure that our ambitious home-grown small and medium-sized enterprises are not being squeezed out of the competition for public contracts that could provide these firms with valuable growth opportunities and the innovation that our economy and public services so badly need?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Member raises an extremely important point: Government procurement can, of course, be an important lever for growing our economy. Whereas previous Governments used the fig leaf of being in the EU as an excuse to buy things from overseas simply because they were a penny cheaper, this Government are committed to ensuring that as much as possible of UK taxpayers’ money is spent in the UK.
The hon. Member asks what discussions I am having with Cabinet Office colleagues. I am having discussions with colleagues in the Cabinet Office, the Home Department, the Ministry of Defence and across Government, because there is a commitment among Ministers to ensure that Government procurement is targeted at British companies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a strong commitment to reduce regulation and bureaucracy, so we can ensure that these contracts are awarded more efficiently and more easily to small businesses in the UK.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Pubs such as The Crown and the Running Horse in the hon. Member’s constituency are a real asset, bringing people together and supporting community life. They are now benefiting from a 15% reduction in their business rates bill, with bills frozen in real terms for a further two years. Around three quarters of pubs will see their bills stay the same or fall, saving the average pub around £1,650 this year. Going even further, the Government are launching a review of how pubs are valued for business rates. The hospitality support fund has been increased to £10 million, to support businesses, including pubs, to invest, grow and remain resilient.
Jerome Mayhew
Pubs in my constituency will respond to that answer with disbelief. There were 74 pubs in my constituency at the last count—that may be an inaccurate figure now; it could have dropped—employing roughly 2,000 people, and on top of that there are cafés such as the Heydon Village Tea Room. They tell me that they are being crucified by the Government’s policy of the jobs tax, the removal of business rates relief and the business rates revaluation, and to top it off there is now talk of an overnight levy for pubs with rooms. Why do the Government not want pubs and hospitality to thrive in Broadland and Fakenham?
Kate Dearden
We absolutely want pubs and our hospitality sector to thrive. They are the backbone of our communities and often provide people’s first job. That is why they are so vital to our high streets, to the hon. Member’s constituency and to our local communities. As he will know, pubs in particular have been under huge pressure in recent years. Their numbers have fallen by nearly 7,000 since 2010—a roughly 15% reduction and among the highest across hospitality overall. That is why, since April, every pub and live music venue will have 15% off their new business rates bill, on top of the support announced at the Budget. We know that we continuously need to support our pubs and the wider industry. That is why I work really closely with the Hospitality Sector Council and with publicans and pubs all across the country, to understand how we can better support them, and I will continue to do so.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
My hon. Friend was an advocate for such legislation long before it was introduced in the House last year. I know how passionate he is about our wider Make Work Pay agenda, as I am too. The Employment Rights Act 2025 is bringing employment rights legislation into the 21st century. We have already repealed burdensome trade union legislation, strengthened statutory sick pay, introduced day one rights to paternity leave and launched the Fair Work Agency. We are implementing the Act over a two-year period and consulting widely with business organisations, trade unions and civil society, to ensure we get the details right and provide the support people need.
Laurence Turner
I draw attention to my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions, and I welcome and acknowledge the Minister’s firm commitment to this area. The Department recently published its response to the trade union right of access consultation. Capping fines at £500,000 equates to a potential liability of 0.02% of operating profits for Amazon’s warehousing operations, but up to 20% of the surplus of a medium- sized trade union. We must get this right. How does disproportionate liability achieve the Government’s aim of creating a workable right in the minority of cases involving very well-resourced and hostile employers?
Kate Dearden
The legal framework for the right of access in the Employment Rights Act 2025 provides an enforcement mechanism that applies to all parties involved in an access agreement. The Government are clear that the enforcement mechanism must be fair, proportionate and adaptable, and we have set out the factors that the Central Arbitration Committee must consider when setting the value of penalties, acknowledging that some breaches will have a greater impact than others. Those factors will include the gravity of the breach, the number of workers affected by it, and the size and resources of the liable party. The Government believe that the level of penalty fines that the CAC may impose must reflect the seriousness of the breach.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Unemployment is rising, with youth unemployment now at 16%, and the jobs tax and the Employment Rights Act are destroying opportunities. Should Ministers not listen to the chief executive of M&S, who said that instead of “trying to run business,” the Government “should…understand business better”? Will they reduce the burden of regulation and tax, rather than continuing to increase it?
Kate Dearden
The hon. Member will know the stats and the results that we have seen in the economy this year, particularly on growth. I am glad that he references youth unemployment, which is a long-term problem in the UK. The number of young people not in education, employment or training went up by a quarter of a million in the last three years of the previous Government. It is a long-term problem, and that is why we are taking it very seriously. He will know about our announcements on the youth guarantee to provide hiring incentives to foundational apprenticeships, especially in retail and hospitality. We all know the importance of that. Overall employment levels are healthy, but we are not complacent. We know that there is more work we need to do with employers to support them. That is why, for example, the £2.5 billion that we are making available through grants to businesses to help to create over 500,000 opportunities for young people to earn or learn is so important.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Employment Rights Act is one of the reasons given by one in eight business leaders for considering leaving Britain. Indeed, 30% of the Sunday Times rich list have already fled this high-tax socialist Government. The family business tax is another. Will the Minister please lobby the Chancellor for another U-turn, this time to adopt our policy of scrapping the family business tax?
Kate Dearden
This Government are absolutely clear that economic growth is a top priority. We are also absolutely clear that we cannot build the foundation for a strong economy with people in insecure work. That is why this legislation is so important, and we were proud to bring it forward. We are also proud to work with businesses across the country on it, and with our trade union and other partners across the country, working together so that we can build an economy that works for working people, reverse the damage that the hon. Lady’s party did in government and make sure that the economy works in the interests of everybody.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
Ensuring that business support takes account of rural needs is incredibly important for this Government. Around one in six people live in rural areas in England, with over 520,000 businesses contributing £259 billion to the English economy.
Tessa Munt
My constituent Jason runs The Cider Barn in the village of Draycott just outside Cheddar, a fantastic local venue that hosts live music and serves, unsurprisingly, really good local cider and ales. Jason was rocked by this year’s massive increase in business rates, which have jumped from £100 a month to £600 a month. I should not have to explain that that meant a significant rise in his operating costs. This kind of shock makes it so hard for micro and small businesses to survive, let alone to thrive. Given how important The Cider Barn is to the local community, what can the Minister say—and, importantly, do—to assure small businesses like Jason’s that they will be supported by this Government?
Peter Kyle
The fact that the hon. Lady’s constituent works in the hospitality sector and is located in a rural area means that he requires multiple types of support from this Government, which he is getting. We have permanently lowered the business rates multiplier for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties. That is worth nearly £1 billion and benefits over 750,000 businesses. I imagine that his business will fall within the definition of a small business. Just this week, we have introduced legislation to tackle late payments for small businesses, which will inject another £11 billion into the economy. This Government are on the side of businesses, whether they are in urban or rural areas and whether they are large or small.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras ha myttin da, Mr Speaker. Over 95% of Cornish businesses are small or microbusinesses. We are a hotbed of innovation and agility, but these Cornish businesses have been supported over the last 10 years with European Union objective 1 funding and shared prosperity funding, both of which have ended, and there is zero chance of Cornwall joining an English mayoral combined authority, so can the Minister outline how we can protect our innovative and agile micro and small businesses?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is describing businesses that are the lifeblood of the British economy, and the innovation that flows from them is vital. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ rural taskforce is taking a strategic view of the challenges faced by businesses in rural areas, and I imagine that the one that he mentions will be in scope. The business growth service also includes growth hubs across the UK, which are supporting businesses in rural areas so that they can get the growth they need into their businesses.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The Government call for evidence on the opt-out collective actions regime closed in October last year, with almost 100 responses received. I welcome the input stakeholders have provided. We are committed to economic growth and robust competition enforcement, including private enforcement, which is good for businesses, consumers and the economy. A consultation will be published as soon as possible. My officials would be happy to work with the right hon. Gentleman to discuss this work further.
Sir Julian Smith
As the Minister says, it is really important that the collective regime continues—we have a great reputation globally for our opt-out regime. The litigation finance industry is vital to supporting claims from consumers. The Government said last year that they would proceed with a Bill to restore a legal issue following the PACCAR judgment, so does she have an update on when that Bill will come forward? It was not in the King’s Speech.
Kate Dearden
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the PACCAR review involves complex issues, and it is important that we take the time needed to get it right. Great care is being taken to ensure that proposals for the opt-out collective actions balance the need to preserve a route to redress for consumers with ensuring a proportionate regime for business. As I said in my previous answer, officials would be happy to discuss this issue further with the right hon. Gentleman.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
We are helping SMEs do more trade with European countries by taking down tariff and other trade barriers in our EU-UK summit, reducing red tape in individual countries, enabling easier business travel and allowing the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, both across the EU and bilaterally. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman welcoming that.
Ben Maguire
I always welcome the cutting of red tape and I await the details excitedly. My North Cornwall constituent, Hannah Willow, runs two art businesses. Prior to Brexit, around 30% of her sales were to customers in Europe, but this has now fallen to 10%. As a result of recent tariffs on trade, her exports to the US have also declined by 20%. Now, adding insult to injury, the de minimis threshold will be removed from 1 July this year. That means that items valued at under €150 entering the EU will no longer be exempt from customs duty and will incur a flat €3 fee per item. Will the Government take up the Liberal Democrats’ call to negotiate a bespoke customs union and finally put our small businesses back at the heart of economy, where they belong?
Chris Bryant
I am afraid that I am not going to take any ideas from the Lib Dems on this matter—I think I can pretty much unite the House on that. One of the things I am very keen on is that we maintain our position as the second-largest art market in the world. That means that we have to negotiate better agreements, including with the European Union. That is one of the things we are doing at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the de minimis rule, but I notice that other businesses in his constituency are doing well. Tarquin’s Cornish Gin is doing well; it has been winning awards in the United States of America and elsewhere—I understand that it is the best gin in the world.
Of course, the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) is doing on critical minerals is bound to benefit Cornish lithium. We are very keen to ensure that we have that capacity in the UK, rather than the lithium just being processed in other parts of the world.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
Since publishing our steel strategy on 19 March, we have published provisional product scope and quota volumes for the new steel trade measures; further reduced electricity prices for steel companies from 1 April through our network charging compensation scheme uplift; confirmed that some steel companies will be part of the British industrial competitiveness scheme; announced new transparency requirements on the origin of steel in public procurement; set up a cross-Government working group on scrap; and introduced—today—the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.
Mr Barros-Curtis
Last week, Sev.en Global Investments announced a £100 million investment into 7 Steel UK in Cardiff, a site that I have recently visited. Do the Government agree that that investment shows our plan to prioritise a modern steel strategy is paying off for jobs and growth while putting working people in Wales and the rest of the UK first?
Chris McDonald
I do indeed agree. The £100 million investment in 7 Steel UK is welcome news, but I met the owners of the business, and they told me that they were able to release that investment only because of the confidence they had in the Government’s approach following the publication of our steel strategy. That is a direct correlation between Government action and £100 million-worth of investment in Cardiff.
I know that my hon. Friend has been a strong advocate of the steel industry. There is an opportunity later today for Members of the House to decide whether they are on the side of the steel industry or not. I encourage the Opposition to put their ideology aside just for a moment and get behind the steel industry this afternoon— I know that is difficult when a Bill has the word “nationalisation” in its title.
Cat Eccles
May I put on record my thanks to Ministers and the Department for their ongoing excellent engagement with me and my local businesses on the steel strategy? Many of the downstream businesses in my Stourbridge constituency currently import products—including zero-carbon steel—that are not produced in the UK. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that businesses like those in my constituency are not unfairly disadvantaged by the quotas and tariffs being introduced under the steel strategy in a few weeks’ time?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for raising issues with businesses in Stourbridge when we met earlier this week; I am happy to continue to work with her. The measures we have introduced, which are primarily to protect the UK steel industry, are targeted at steels that are made or can be made in the UK. There are sometimes difficulties where a product code covers multiple steel grades, but that is what the quota system is intended to deal with, and of course there will be a review in 12 months’ time.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Further to the question from the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) and my question to the Prime Minister yesterday, I am sure the Minister is aware that lots of manufacturing businesses are, frankly, screaming about the damage that the tariffs are going to do in five weeks’ time. Will he please consider an extension of the transition period to two years to allow three things to happen? First, it would allow UK steel capacity to grow in order to cover the gap. Secondly, it would allow quotas to be set correctly, so that UK businesses are not disadvantaged in the absence of UK production capacity. Thirdly, it would allow us to work out how it can be fair that somebody importing steel into the UK to produce a product pays tariffs, but somebody importing a finished product from overseas that is made from the self-same steel does not face tariffs.
Chris McDonald
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I believe we have had representation from Stannah, the stairlift company based in his constituency. It is important to say that the Government take action like this reluctantly, but ultimately there are distortions in the market around steel. The EU taking action itself would lead to the UK becoming a dumping ground for cheap steel flooding in from overseas. We have taken a very carefully balanced approach and consulted carefully with the industry. I continue to receive representations, and, as I said, there is an opportunity for a review of the measures in 12 months’ time.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
May I gently but urgently reiterate the previous two questions? Sam, one of my constituents, has raised Dynamic Metals, an independent British supplier working on specialised steel and metals for aerospace and motorsports. We have to champion those industries in this country. From 1 July, his business will see import tariffs go from zero to more than £3 million. That is pretty much insurmountable, and this policy could have an awful impact on industries that we must champion. Will the Minister consider the points raised in the previous two questions, as well as extending the deadline and meeting my constituents and those of many others in order to understand the full impact? That way, we can stand up for our industries and support our steel partners.
Chris McDonald
I am not familiar with the situation with Dynamic Metals. I was just having a discussion on the Front Bench with the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), and if the hon. Lady writes to him, he will look carefully at the matter she has raised.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I will carry on with the same theme, because it is clear from all sides that there are real issues with the element of the steel strategy that imposes a 50% tariff on 1 July. It is affecting manufacturing businesses up and down this country, and it is being done in a way that not only threatens manufacturing jobs, but increases inflationary pressures. Can the Minister tell the House what impact assessment he has done on the effect of these measures on inflation and on jobs?
Chris McDonald
I reiterate the point that the action that the Government have taken has been to correct an issue in the market. We have taken wide representation. In fact, we amended the list as a result of some of that representation. The shadow Minister’s point about inflation goes exactly back to the point that I made earlier. This country cannot be in a position where we say that we are prepared to buy the cheapest thing, wherever it is made in the world, to the sacrifice of our own industry. We cannot allow foreign Governments’ industrial policies to drive our own industrial policy. That is why we have taken this action—similar action to that taken by the EU. It comes down to a question of whose side are you on. Are you on the side of British industry, like the Government, or are you on the side of overseas industry? That seems to be the case being prosecuted by the Opposition.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Pubs in Bromsgrove are vital to the local economy, supporting jobs and bringing communities together. I welcome success stories such as the Gate at Bournheath being named Bromsgrove and the villages’ pub of the year 2026, highlighting the strength of the sector. The Government are committed to backing pubs with permanently lower business rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and an additional 15% relief for pubs. We have also significantly increased the hospitality support fund to £10 million to help businesses invest, grow and remain resilient. That fund will help more than 1,000 pubs to diversify their business models, improve efficiency and productivity in the sector, and support people who are furthest from the labour market to move into jobs in hospitality.
Bradley Thomas
I thank the Minister for her response, but I am afraid that the picture she paints is not one that pubs across my constituency will recognise. A typical pub in my constituency is paying around £2,500 in additional costs a month compared with two years ago, because of a rise in energy costs, employment costs and business rates. If the Minister is serious about supporting the hospitality sector, will the Government look at a permanent cut to business rates for pubs and exempt pubs with accommodation from the overnight levy?
Kate Dearden
I understand that rising energy prices and the wider supply chain effects can place particular strain on sectors such as pubs and the wider hospitality sector, which often rely on that discretionary spending, and operate on tight margins. I have met lots of such businesses up and down the country over recent weeks, and I know that the current situation with energy prices, especially given what is happening in Iran, is causing a lot of concern. Across Government, we are considering carefully this area as part of our ongoing assessment of economic conditions and support mechanisms. We absolutely want to support our pubs and the hospitality sector, as they are vital to our local communities and high streets. It is vital that we provide the economic stability that we have shown this year, ensuring that the economy can keep growing, wages can rise, and people can have money to spend to support our pubs and our hospitality sector.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The Government recognise the vital role that hospitality plays in keeping high streets vibrant, driving footfall, supporting local jobs and sustaining town centre services. We know that many businesses, including the Swan Hotel, Bar and Grill in Maldon, are still facing real pressures, which is why we have delivered permanently lower business rates for over 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties, alongside a £4.3 billion support package, including transitional relief, to help firms to remain on the high street, invest and grow. Later this year, we will bring forward a new high streets strategy, developed with businesses, to support regeneration and help town centres to thrive.
Sir John Whittingdale
Despite what the Minister says, hospitality businesses in my constituency, and the constituencies of my hon. Friends, are reeling from the impact of higher energy costs, and increased national insurance contributions and business rates. These businesses are making it clear that if there are any further increases, they will simply not survive. Why are the Government pressing ahead with another tax in the form of the overnight visitor levy, and will she talk to businesses before proceeding with that?
Kate Dearden
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the decision on the overnight visitor levy is down to mayoral authorities. They will work really closely with businesses and stakeholders in making that decision, but he raises an important point. I recognise the significant pressures facing pubs, hospitality businesses and breweries, which are facing sustained cost increases. We are closely monitoring the potential impact of disruption to trade and the wider economy, because our priority is to keep prices down for households and businesses. Going forward, we will build on our work to cut energy bills and crack down on unfair profiteering. The new framework that we have announced will help regulators spot trouble early and protect consumers, and we will work with businesses on that. We understand and recognise the pressures, and we will work really closely with businesses to support them.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
This week, I hosted the British Beer and Pub Association in Parliament. It has more than 20,000 members across the country, including Camerons Brewery in Hartlepool. Among the many issues that it raised was this summer’s football world cup. In other parts of the UK, late licences are being permitted for all games, but in England and Wales, they are only for England and Scotland games. Will my hon. Friend make representations to her ministerial colleagues about allowing late licences for all games, so that we back our pubs and celebrate this festival of football?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important point. I am looking forward to getting out to the pub and supporting England in the world cup. His point about licensing is really important, and we will work closely with colleagues across Government on that.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for not ruining my moment to shine.
I told the House that I would be an activist, interventionist champion for business. I am very pleased to say that later today, the Chancellor will announce funding for two of our foundational sectors: ceramics and chemicals. She will set out more detail to the House shortly, but I can say that we are working with industry and experts to provide the targeted intervention that those sectors need. Today’s business tells the story: this Government stand with British business when it comes to creating the resilient and growing economy that this country deserves.
Jerome Mayhew
Our economy needs access to oil. Last October, the Government announced that they were going to sanction Russian oil and jet fuel. Yesterday, they decided not to do so, on the same day that they banned new drilling in the North sea. Why do the Government support Putin’s Russian oil, but not our UK oil?
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The thing about a Labrador is that when it has got hold of the wrong end of the stick, it is very difficult to get that stick back. A lot of hon. Members have got the wrong end of the stick about what we are doing. We are increasing the sanctions on Russian oil. Up until now, it has been perfectly possible to bring Russian oil products into the UK if they are processed elsewhere, without any impediment whatsoever. It is absolutely right that we are bringing that to an end.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. We are on topicals, and I have to get other Members in. I am sure the Minister will have got it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
We recognise the vital contribution of hospitality businesses in the UK, including pubs in Carlisle, to supporting local employment and sustaining high streets and communities. They play a really important role in the cultural and social fabric of communities. I am always delighted to meet my hon. Friend.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
First, I congratulate the Government on securing the Gulf Co-operation Council deal. Success has many authors, and Members on both sides of the House have been part of these negotiations as Ministers, but a win is a win. These are—[Interruption.] These are our historical friends and allies, and this is part of a growth agenda.
Summer is approaching and young people are graduating. The Office for National Statistics reported this week that, as a direct result of this Government’s choices, one in six young people is looking for a job, but cannot find one. Sectors like retail and hospitality are shedding jobs by the thousands. Will the Secretary of State finally accept that, well-intentioned or otherwise, the Government have got it wrong?
Peter Kyle
It speaks for itself when the Opposition try to take credit for the Government’s achievements. It shows just how good this Government actually are. However, I am grateful for the hon. Member’s warm words about the GCC deal. A lot of work went into it, but of course when we came into office, we were practically on the starting line; we were so close to it at that moment.
I will be really up front about youth unemployment. This issue faces most communities in our country, and we should have much more cross-party support on it. In the interests of offering an olive branch, let me say that as someone who had a challenging pathway through education into employment, I recognise the issue. However, the Opposition must admit that, in the three years before they left office, youth unemployment went up by 250,000. Yes, we will work together, but it does—
Mr Speaker
Order. Secretary of State, my words apply to you as well as to Back Benchers, because I am trying to help your Back Benchers get their questions in. We will now hear a very quick question from the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. I hope he would agree, cross-party, with the Tony Blair Institute, which has said that the UK must restore “dynamism” to its labour market, rather than imposing restrictions such as the Employment Rights Act 2025. Could the Secretary of State, who is a good man, at least promise me that, if he gets to serve as Chancellor in a Government led by his friend, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), he will use that chance to change the Government’s approach?
Peter Kyle
Dynamism is increasing in our economy, and that is why we have so much growth—growth that the Conservatives failed to deliver in their 14 years. As for young people, we have the youth guarantee, which includes a six-month funded programme placement that provides a rich environment for kids who were put out of work—a lot of the time, by the Conservatives when they were in government. It gets kids back into work, and does so sustainably.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
Just last year, I was in my hon. Friend’s neck of the woods for the investment summit, unleashing further billions into his part of the country. I know that the automotive sector is incredibly important to him, and we are pledged to getting back to the level of automotive output we had before the Tories halved it. When we get back to that point, he will see a flourishing, booming industry, with the jobs that follow.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
According to reports in both the Financial Times and The Times, the Government have asked supermarket retailers to reduce the price of essential food items, such as milk, bread and eggs. The chief executive officer of Marks & Spencer has described the proposals as “completely preposterous”. Can the Secretary of State confirm that instead of trying to impose price controls on private businesses, his Department will look to reduce the cost of Government-imposed burdens on retailers, such as business rates, national insurance contributions and energy costs?
Peter Kyle
There will be no price cap and there will be no price controls, but I am not going to apologise for throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the cost of living challenges that we inherited, along with an economy that was broken.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. Yes, I can say that Little Layton in his constituency is one of the 379 communities across the UK that will receive Pride in Place funding, just one of the cross-departmental packages of support that his constituency will benefit from. We will not forget. We will keep on supporting him all the way.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Chris Bryant
I am very happy to meet the company, and the right hon. Gentleman if he want to come and see me, to talk through all those issues. It is really important, if we are to have a steel production sector in this country, to ensure that it has an opportunity to compete with unfair competition around the rest of the world. That is why we are taking the action that we are. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), made the point earlier that if we do not take this action on quotas and tariffs, we will be dumped on, because every other equivalent major economy to ours is taking that action, but I am very happy to look at the precise details with the company, and with him.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, come on! Tell me who you don’t want me to get in, because that is what happens when we do this.
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. The UK Government have a support package for England, with £4.3 billion to protect ratepayers. The Barnett consequentials provide support for Scotland, but where the UK Government are supporting businesses, the SNP is choking off investment and risking jobs.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Chris Bryant
Of course I am happy to meet. Maybe we should organise a meeting for several companies and several hon. Members. I am very happy to do that as soon as possible. I do not want to extend the transition period, for the simple reason that the EU, the United States and other countries are introducing very similar measures, and the danger is that we would just be dumped on. There will be a review mechanism after a year. I am very keen to meet colleagues to explain the trade-offs we are having to make.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
The Committee is meeting steel makers later today and will supply the Government with its advice from that, but I want to raise the automotive sector. We are not going to double automotive production in the way the Secretary of State wants unless we fundamentally reform the zero emission vehicle mandate. Auto makers are subsidising sales by £5 billion a year. They are transferring money to state-subsidised players, such as BYD, and battery costs have not fallen. Will the Secretary of State bring forward a whole-market review and reform the ZEV mandate for good?
Peter Kyle
My right hon. Friend, as always, gives great voice to the automotive sector. I have listened closely to the voices of the sector in relation to the ZEV mandate—it is important that we do that. It is also important that, when setting such targets, we take into account consumer demand. That is something I am very aware of and having conversations about with colleagues across Government.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Kate Dearden
Boosting opportunity and tackling youth unemployment in every area remains a priority, and helping young people into work is crucial for that. We know that some people value that flexibility, which is why I will be considering that as part of the regulations.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Cornwall has so much to offer the UK—critical minerals, floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, defence, geothermal energy—but infrastructure, particularly ports and rail, will be critical to enable growth. Cornwall is a perfect place to designate as an industrial strategy zone. Will the Minister agree to meet me and Cornish colleagues to discuss this?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the potential in Cornwall, which is a unique and distinctive part of the country. It powered our industrial past and it will power our industrial future. I am happy to meet her and colleagues to talk more about the opportunities in Cornwall.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The pubs in Spelthorne are under the cosh. The Minister, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), said that a review of pubs and how they are valued for business rates purposes is ongoing. She will know that the review will not be relevant until 2029. Pubs are closing today. Young people are losing their jobs today. Will those on the Government Front Bench please do more to lobby the Treasury for our pubs?
Kate Dearden
Pubs in the hon. Member’s constituency and nationwide are so important to day-to-day community life, and we are mindful of the challenges that they have faced in recent years. The number of pubs has fallen by nearly 7,000 since 2010. We know how significant that is, and I will work closely with colleagues to support pubs.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am delighted that the Government have listened to my calls, and those of my neighbours in Stoke-on-Trent, to finally act to support the ceramics industry—calls so loud that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has lost his voice. While we await the detail, will the Secretary of State come to North Staffordshire to meet the ceramics businesses that he and this Government are helping today?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The package that we are announcing today will be significant. I will not say any more, because the Chancellor will be making that announcement later. I can say, however, that the boldness of the package is a direct consequence of the voices that we have heard from MPs, including from my hon. Friend and others in Stoke—whether losing their voice or not. Those voices have been profoundly important to the scope, scale and boldness of what will be announced today.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Hospitality businesses in North East Fife support the Lib Dem call for a VAT cut for hospitality, but the Government do not seem to be moving on it. Will the Minister consult with businesses on a lower national insurance contribution band for part-time workers? Part-time opportunities are so important to hospitality and for getting younger people into work.
Kate Dearden
It was a pleasure to meet the hon. Member and the hospitality sector in her constituency recently. There are a wide range of factors when introducing new tax reliefs, and they need to happen in the usual way. The alleviation that we have already introduced on NIC is making a real difference to young people getting into employment. We will review it in the usual way in due course.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In October, Nestlé announced 16,000 job losses, including 450 in the UK. In the light of the significant impact that this will have in York, will the Secretary of State ensure that meaningful consultation happens with the trade unions, and will he meet them to save those jobs?
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Small businesses in Didcot’s Broadway are struggling with energy and staff costs, business rates and a rising tax burden, and the older town centre would benefit from investment and rejuvenation. For areas, such as Didcot, that did not receive Pride in Place funding, what suggestions does the Secretary of State have for funding or other forms of support?
Peter Kyle
What businesses in Didcot and right across the country need is a fast-growing economy, and that is what we are delivering.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
In my constituency we are seeing good growth in our large employers and a great skills pipeline coming through from our advanced technical college, but we need a little support for our SMEs. Will the Minister say what targeted support is available for SMEs in towns like Stafford?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend raises an important point about support for small businesses. It is important that their cash flow is protected and that they are paid on time—hopefully my hon. Friend will have noticed the announcement of the Commercial Payments Bill in the King’s Speech, which will give us the strongest legal framework in the G7.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Fifteen months on from the £200 million pledged for Grangemouth, and five months on from the Minister’s confirmation that prospective projects were being examined and shortlisted, what progress is being made to deliver new industry and jobs for Grangemouth?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right: £200 million is available for such projects. The initial £14.5 million of funding that was announced will help businesses to test the feasibility of their project ideas in order to secure long-term funding from the National Wealth Fund.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Back to the 1 July tariffs: the quotas are too small and the commodity codes are too broad. The steel required for aerospace can come only from, I think, SSUK, which is currently in liquidation. That grade of steel cannot be produced elsewhere—that is for commercial steel. Businesses will be bankrupted within six months—12 months is far too long. Will those on the Front Bench please listen to industry on this?
Chris Bryant
We are listening to both sides of industry, because there are the downstream users and there is the production. The truth of the matter is that UK steel production under the previous Government fell from— I think this is correct—27 million tonnes a year to 4 million tonnes a year. If we are to meet our armaments needs in future years, we need a sovereign steel capacity in this country. We have to be able to produce British steel. We have been very careful to ensure that the quotas are cutting areas only where the UK can produce that steel.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that expanding the use of home-grown timber in construction and manufacturing would not only support UK forestry and small businesses, but strengthen supply chain resilience and reduce our reliance on imports, which currently make up 80% of the timber we use? What specific measures will the Government introduce to support this sector as a strategic national asset?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend knows that I am a strong advocate of steel in construction, but she is right: there has been a missed opportunity on timber, particularly as many of our hardwood forests are coming to maturity, which means we will have a real surplus of hardwood in the UK. Something we will suffer from, though, is downstream processing of timber, so we need to look at how we can encourage more investment in the sawmills and downstream processing industry.
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to let Members know that Harriet Cross had the first topical question on the Order Paper, but she had withdrawn it. I want to reassure the House that that was a mistake, and we were following the agenda. Hopefully that will not be repeated by the Table Office.
Costs for Motorists
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the urgent question, let me repeat what I said to the House at the start of this parliamentary Session. The Government’s own ministerial code makes it clear that important policy announcements should be made in the first instance to this House when it is sitting. Some people seem to have very short memories. This announcement has been drip-fed to the media over the past three days. That is not in line with the Government’s own rules, and it is unacceptable. Back Benchers on either side have been elected to this House to hear such announcements first, instead of outside a Morrisons petrol station, on a bus, or on TikTok. Members should be respected. I uphold this House and I respect them, even when the Government do not. The Government have to get their act together and recognise the value of their own Back Benchers.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on the Government’s plan for costs for motorists.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
Mr Speaker, your comments have been fully noted, and I will ensure that they are fed back to the entire ministerial team.
The Government are taking steps to support households and businesses with fuel costs in response to the conflict in the middle east. A rapid de-escalation in the middle east remains the best way to bring down fuel prices. The most impactful step, of course, would be to reopen the strait of Hormuz. That is exactly why the UK Government are playing a leading role in the international effort to get shipping flowing freely. Indeed, I contrast that with the position of the Leader of the Opposition, who would have rushed us to war. [Interruption.]
Alongside this key step—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, the boys’ club—
Mr Speaker
Order. I cannot hear what the Minister is saying. We have agreed to an urgent question in order to hear from the Minister. I am proud of this Parliament and of this country, so I want to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lucy Rigby
Alongside this key step, the Government’s priority will continue to be helping families with the cost of living, including through protecting the public finances. The Government are taking action to bear down on prices at the pump, and in November we extended the 5p per litre cut in fuel duty for a further five months. Right now, petrol and diesel are 11p per litre cheaper than they would have been under the plans we inherited from the previous Government.
Some fuels have been more impacted than others by the conflict, and we recognise that. The Government also recognise the pressures being faced by drivers and other fuel users. That is why we are introducing a package worth over £400 million that combines broad support for motorists with targeted support for the sectors most exposed to and affected by higher fuel prices.
Yesterday the Prime Minister made it clear that we will not increase fuel duty this year. The temporary 5p cut will be extended until the end of the year. Taken together, the Government’s decisions will save the average motorist over £120 this year, compared with the plans we inherited from the previous Government.
We also recognise that farmers face substantially increased costs for fertiliser and fuel. That is why we are going further and cutting the duty rate on red diesel by over a third per litre, to the lowest rate in over 20 years. That will help other users of red diesel too.
The road haulage sector is vital for transporting goods across the country. Recognising the sector’s key role and the increased costs that it is facing, we are introducing a 12-month holiday from vehicle excise duty for the majority of heavy goods vehicles. This will save a typical HGV over £600—up to £912 for some vehicles—on top of the savings that I have just described for fuel duty.
To conclude, this change is one part of our support for households and businesses. It combines universal support for motorists with targeted support for those most affected by higher fuel prices. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will update the House later today on further support measures for households and businesses.
Sir Mel Stride
May I begin by agreeing with you, Mr Speaker, and saying how disrespectful it is that this U-turn on fuel duty has already been released to the media earlier this week? The news was plastered across national newspapers on Monday, and yesterday the Chancellor conducted a visit to a petrol station with journalists, but it has taken until today for this House to be updated. This is a pattern, Mr Speaker—including, of course, the relentless briefings before the Budget last year about tax measures and fiscal forecasts. You would think that a Government with so little support among their own Back Benchers would have more respect for this place.
This change to fuel duty is yet another humiliating U-turn from a Chancellor and Prime Minister whose authority is shot. The Chancellor fought us tooth and nail on this issue. The Conservative party has been campaigning for a fuel duty freeze for months. The Chancellor repeatedly rejected those calls, creating unnecessary uncertainty for motorists and businesses. Why did it take her so long to realise that putting up fuel duty during an energy crisis is a bad idea? Does she really expect us to believe that this is all only happening, as she has suggested, because of better growth?
Let us be clear: the Chancellor has been pointing to the slight upward revision in the International Monetary Fund’s growth forecast earlier this week. That forecast was for growth of 1%, but until April the IMF was forecasting growth this year of 1.3%, so where is the supposed growth dividend? Perhaps the Minister can address that momentarily. Is the Chancellor seriously suggesting that the outlook is better now compared with how it looked at the last fiscal event? On wider measures, will the Minister confirm what has also been briefed to the press and not told to the House: that HM Revenue and Customs’ mileage rates are to be changed?
Let us be clear that this is a Government lurching from one U-turn to the next. Their mismanagement has left our economy weak. The reality is that they are in no position to support people through these cost of living pressures because they have mismanaged the economy. They have no credibility left, and clearly they have no respect for the House.
Lucy Rigby
Put simply, as I said, the shadow Chancellor’s party would have had motorists hurtling full speed towards higher fuel costs. It is only because of the action that this Government have taken that we have applied the brake to the hikes that his party would have introduced. The Conservatives would have introduced higher costs; we are keeping the freeze on fuel duty and protecting millions of motorists right across the country. Exactly as I said, we are taking further measures on red diesel and for HGV drivers.
That is on top of additional action that we are taking on the cost of living. The shadow Chancellor and I saw each other in the studios earlier this morning when I was out there talking about the free, unlimited bus travel for children that the Chancellor will update us on—
Mr Speaker
Order. I just say to the Minister that if that was being said in the studios, rather than to the House, it is not a good example—it confirms that you somehow think that Sky or BBC are more important than Back Benchers, elected by constituents across this country, who must hear it second-hand. It is not acceptable. Do not think that it is a bonus to tell the House that now.
Lucy Rigby
Mr Speaker, the Chancellor will come to the House later on today, and she—
Mr Speaker
Order. The point I was making was that you said you were doing the studios. You are here now, and I think it should have been announced here first. Do we both agree?
Lucy Rigby
My apologies, Mr Speaker. I had intended to say just then that the Chancellor will come to the House and give a full statement on everything, including the matters that we are discussing.
I am sorry that the shadow Chancellor is so upset and appalled by the recent growth figures. I am in the business of talking this country up rather than down. Indeed, I am grateful to him for highlighting that growth has been revised up, interest rates are coming down, inflation is coming down and real wages are going up. As I said, that is because of the prudent decisions that the Government have taken, all of which are allowing us to take further action on the cost of living.
The action that we are taking on fuel duty is very important. It will save millions of motorists across this country a lot of money. I will address the point on HMRC mileage rates: as I said, the Chancellor will come to the House later and talk about the full package.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Thank you for facilitating the urgent question, Mr Speaker. I welcome the announcements on fuel duty, but I did not hear the Chief Secretary say anything about remedies for the new costs on drivers of electric vehicles. Those new costs, imposed at the last Budget, are suppressing demand for electric vehicles to such an extent that UK automakers are having to subsidise demand by £5 billion a year. That is imperilling their future and imperilling the target of doubling automotive production by 2035. Can we have a statement about what the Government will do to reform the zero emission vehicle mandate and get in place a plan that leads to a thriving auto industry, not a dying one?
Lucy Rigby
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I know how passionate he is about these issues. He refers to changes made at the Budget, which were made with the best of intentions and from the point of view of encouraging the use of electric vehicles. I believe that the Chancellor may say something on that later on.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Like so many Labour Government announcements, the announcement to extend fuel duty relief later this year is too little, too late. When we look around the world, we see other countries acting now. Other countries are cutting fuel duty now. Other countries are cutting public transport costs now. That is why we Liberal Democrats continue to call on the Government to cut fuel duty and public transport costs now. What message does the Minister think it sends to people that the Government will take action later in the year when people are feeling the pain in their pockets right now?
On farmers, the Government will be aware that the cost of fertiliser is going through the roof; world prices are up 44%. The Minister says that there will be a further cut in duty on red diesel, but what assessment have the Government made of the cumulative impact of the war in Iran on farmers? It is clear to me that the cut in red diesel duty will not touch the sides when the cost of fertiliser is rocketing through the roof.
Lucy Rigby
The hon. Member makes a really important point about the cost that farmers are facing, but that is exactly why we are taking steps to cut the duty on red diesel by more than a third to its lowest rate in over 20 years. As I said, that will help not just farmers, but other sectors, too, including in relation to freight. I am afraid that, as so often, we hear suggestions from the Liberal Democrats, “Cut this”, “Cut that”, “Try to bring things down”—[Interruption.]—but they are never funded. We manage the public finances—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) has asked her question and I want respect given to the Minister when she is answering it, please.
Lucy Rigby
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point is that we have to manage the public finances responsibly. We cannot put in place measures that are not fully funded, and I wish that some of the proposals being put forward were adequately backed up and fully funded.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
These are welcome announcements, and I welcome the Chief Secretary to her place. The Government have a very important convening power, and one thing that residents in Oldham raise all the time is how much they pay for car insurance compared with those in other areas. For low-paid workers, particularly those who need their car for business, that additional premium represents a lot of money going out every year above and beyond what those in neighbouring areas pay. Will the Chief Secretary convene the insurance industry and see what can be done to finally address the postcode lottery?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue, and I thank him for all the work that he has done in this space to try to bring down the cost for people across the country. In my old role as Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I was closer to the work of the insurance sector and the work that the current Economic Secretary is now taking forward to try to ensure that prices are brought down, but I am more than happy to convene with the new Economic Secretary and take forward the work that my hon. Friend suggests.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Obviously, the Minister is not aware that the previous Conservative Government froze fuel duty for 14 years. Some of us lobbied for the Government of the day to abolish the escalator, but we did not do it. However, may I ask her one key question? How much extra money has the Treasury obtained as a result of the rise in the wholesale price of fuel at the pumps?
Lucy Rigby
I am afraid that the hon. Member has entirely missed the fact that the plans that his Government left in place would have seen fuel duty go up. It is only because of the action that this Government are taking that millions of motorists across the country will save money.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I welcome the efforts to support drivers at the petrol pumps, but this situation has not led to an increase in demand for electric vehicles. As the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) has said, the automotive sector is facing a real crisis because of the ZEV mandate. I was at the Vauxhall plant in my constituency last week; there is not, and there will not be, the consumer demand to meet the escalating demands of the ZEV mandate. Will the Treasury please use its convening power across Government to bring forward the review of the mandate?
Lucy Rigby
As I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), I appreciate that this is a really important issue, and I know what an important issue it is to my hon. Friend and his constituency too. As I said, I am more than happy to take up the matter, and I will discuss it with the Exchequer Secretary.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Increased fuel costs are a real pain point in a constituency like mine. Rural households that depend on their cars spend nearly £800 a year more on fuel than people who live in urban areas. Will the Government listen again to the Liberal Democrats’ demands for an immediate 10p cut in fuel duty, which would bring down pump prices by 12p per litre?
Lucy Rigby
I think that these suggestions are being made with the best of intentions, but with the deepest respect to the hon. Member, this is all motherhood and apple pie. If we want to do these nice things, we have to be able to say where the money will come from.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for recognising the important role that hauliers and freight play in our national and local economies. The steps announced yesterday will hugely support the 3,500 people in my constituency who work in transport and logistics. These are the people who keep our shelves stocked and our economies moving. Will the Minister liaise with her colleagues in other Government Departments on what other support could be made available for the logistics sector, including improved welfare facilities?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend raises the important issue of hauliers and the road haulage sector. What we are discussing today is so critical to the costs that hauliers are paying, including vehicle excise duty, which of course is on top of the changes we are making to fuel duty to save hauliers money. This is one of the ways in which we are recognising the critical role that hauliers play in setting costs, including of consumer goods. All these things fit together, and I recognise how important the sector is to my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Rural drivers in West Worcestershire will be delighted that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has seen the political reality that it would have been mad to put another 5p on petrol on 1 September, but can she explain to my constituents why we are not allowing oil and gas extraction from our own basin yet we are allowing an increase in Putin-produced oil and gas?
Lucy Rigby
I am grateful to the hon. Member for her question, but if it would have been so mad to deal with fuel duty in that way, why was it her party’s intention to do exactly that? On oil and gas, we have been very clear that they will play a part in our fuel mix for years and years to come.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
The Tories oversaw the only Parliament in history where living standards were lower at the end than they were at the start. This Government, by contrast, got wages up more in a year than the Tories did in a decade, with growth and inflation rates better than forecast. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that ours is the best possible economic plan when it comes to delivering for my constituents, including their interests as motorists?
Lucy Rigby
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. It is because of the fiscally responsible choices that the Chancellor has made that growth and real wages have gone up, and inflation and interest rates have come down. [Interruption.] These things do not happen by accident; they are because of the fiscally responsible way that the Chancellor is managing our economy. That is fiscal responsibility for a purpose, that purpose being to support working people across this country.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I welcome the hon. and learned Lady to her new role in the Cabinet. She was an excellent colleague when she was on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and it does not surprise me that she is the first of her intake to make it.
It is in that spirit that I hope to be able to help the hon. and learned Lady in marking out her career. Some 90% of my constituency is rural, and increases in the price of fuel worry people. They do not put money into the economy because they do not know where that price will go. Will the hon. and learned Lady take the opportunity to do something that should have been done by the last Conservative Government? Rather than put out false figures for raising fuel duty that never happen, it would be a much better boost to the economy if people had certainty about their fuel costs.
Lucy Rigby
I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for his kind comments. I appreciate where he is trying to go with his remarks, but what we are doing with this announcement is saving the average motorist over £120 this year, compared with the plans that we inherited. By saying—as the Prime Minister has—that we are going to extend the cut until 31 December, we are trying to give people a bit of certainty and reassurance. We recognise that family budgets are really stretched at the moment, which is why we are introducing this measure, and plenty of others, to try to help people with the cost of living.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that it is right that we did not rush into the Iran war and that our Government’s plans and actions to support households are responsive to changing events, rather than being knee-jerk reactions that end up causing more damage to our economy in the longer term?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend’s comments again highlight that the Conservative party would have raced to war. When I said that earlier—Conservative Members are doing it again; they are shaking their heads at me. The reality is—
Lucy Rigby
Okay. One of two things is true: either the Leader of the Opposition said that she would have taken us into the conflict and she did not mean it, in which case she is really confused, frankly; or she said it and she meant it, which is demonstrative of catastrophic judgment. Neither of those things—catastrophically bad judgment or deep confusion—is an ideal quality for someone who wants to run the country.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Government have repeatedly pointed to the fuel finder website as the best way to keep prices low through competition. Yet in my constituency costs have gone up so much that there is basically no variation between the pumps. Those high prices are crippling for everyone, but particularly for local businesses such as the fish merchants from the East Neuk, who go far and beyond North East Fife to deliver to customers directly. Driving is not avoidable for a constituency such as mine. Obviously, the Government are not looking at the Lib Dem proposals, but why do they not offer meaningful support beyond red diesel in rural constituencies? What about EV charging, for example? Often, in constituencies such as mine, people have to charge away from home because they need their car to get about the constituency.
Lucy Rigby
We are supporting motorists in a meaningful way and it is really important. The hon. Member mentioned the Competition and Markets Authority’s fuel finder scheme. The intention of that is to save households that own a car up to £40 a year. She is right that the key principle behind that is competition. We know that competition is the way that we get to greater choice and lower prices for consumers.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury reassure me that the Treasury really understands that in rural areas the cost of fuel not only relates to what motorists pay for driving but affects everything—all the goods and services provided—on sale in the shops? Therefore, rather than trying to put caps on the things that are on sale in shops, the best way to help keep costs down in rural areas is to keep fuel costs down.
Lucy Rigby
I have to tell the right hon. Member that we are not attempting to cap the prices in supermarkets and nor were we intending to do so. The Chancellor is having discussions with supermarkets, as she is with other sectors, with a view to putting downwards pressure on prices and helping people with the cost of living. As I have said repeatedly, we on the Government Benches recognise that there is a cost of living crisis out there, not least because of the inheritance we received from the Conservatives, and we are seeking to help people with those costs.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
May I thank my hon. Friend for recognising and supporting hauliers and logistics companies, such as the Malcolm Group, the UK’s leading independent provider of third-party logistics services, which is based in my constituency and supports many hundreds of jobs across Paisley and Renfrewshire South? Those companies play such an important role in keeping our shelves stocked and our economies running. I echo the calls made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) for us to go further in supporting greater welfare facilities for drivers. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury make some comment on the safety of logistics staff who, too often, man vehicles that are targeted by criminals?
Lucy Rigby
I am glad to hear that the measures will help the Malcolm Group in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as indeed they will hauliers right across the country. She raises, as other hon. Members have, an important point around welfare. She also alludes to freight crime, which has been discussed at length in this House and is something in which I am particularly interested, given the nature of my constituency. The Government are taking forward action to seek to deal with freight crime, as well as taking action on welfare, but I would be more than happy to convene a meeting with other Ministers and my hon. Friend on the issue.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Does the Minister agree that one of the Government’s main responsibilities is to provide energy security for its citizens? As a nation resplendent with our own resources, why will this Government not issue more licences to drill in the North sea for oil and gas, which would make us energy-sufficient and have a knock-on effect at the pumps?
Lucy Rigby
The best way to get to energy security is by doing exactly what the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is doing at the moment with the push towards renewables. New licences in the North sea would not bring new oil and gas on stream for another 10 years, so they really are the wrong solution.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The freeze in fuel duty will be a relief to drivers in North East Hertfordshire, but part of the reason there is such a problem is that the Conservative party’s last stint in government left public transport virtually non-existent in rural communities such as mine. We discussed earlier this week the enormous cost of HS2—more than £100 billion. If we were investing at that scale in bus services, we could provide a vastly improved network across the whole country for decades to come. Will the Government learn the lessons of the current crisis and redirect our public transport spending towards the journeys we need to make in our day-to-day lives?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend raises an important point about the critical nature of bus services to the entire country. That is exactly why we are providing more than £3 billion for buses over the next three years, to cap fares at £3 and maintain and improve services. That includes funding for local authorities to put in place local fare initiatives if they wish to do so, as I believe the North East combined authority has done. We are also making reforms to bus franchising, which will allow for new and better services.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I want to come back to what the Minister said earlier about the war in Iran. She knows full well that the Leader of the Opposition did not say that she would take us into the conflict, and she knows full well that it was a NOFORN—no foreign nationals—operation and that there was never an opportunity for the UK to be involved. If she does not know that, she should go and speak to the Defence team and get up to date with the details. She has some cheek, considering that the Government have just decided that they are going to row back on the pressure they put on Russia. Given that the Minister did not explain it in her media round this morning, will she now explain exactly why the Government decided to exempt oil and oil products that originate from Russia under commodity codes 2709 and 2710?
Lucy Rigby
I wholeheartedly reject any accusation or idea whatsoever that we are somehow going soft on Russia and Putin. That is completely wrong. The new package of sanctions that we have introduced is stronger today—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I told the Front Benchers, and I am telling the Back Benchers: they have had the courtesy of being able to ask a question; I want them to hear the answer, and I need to hear it as well.
Lucy Rigby
The package of sanctions in place today is stronger than the package of sanctions that was in place last week. We have a world-leading sanctions regime in this country: at the moment, we have more than 3,300 sanctions on Russian entities, businesses, individuals and ships—the list goes on and on. Why does it go on and on? It is because of our steadfast support for Ukraine.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Scotland is an energy superpower, so it is particularly galling for constituents and businesses in my constituency, which is a two and a half hour drive end to end, and where road vehicles are an absolute necessity to conduct daily life, to face the prices they currently face. Will the Government commit to using the hundreds of millions of pounds of extra tax revenue from VAT for a VAT freeze for the duration of the current crisis?
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
While it is good news that the Chancellor has been forced into another humiliating U-turn over her increase to fuel duty, it just delays the increase until the end of the year. The cost of living is surging, and families are feeling the pinch in every aspect of their lives. Why will the Government not give people and businesses the certainty they need and cancel the fuel duty increase altogether?
Lucy Rigby
There is absolutely nothing humiliating about the action being taken by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to protect millions of motorists across this country. Again, I have to remind the hon. Member that the plans we inherited from the previous Government would have seen motorists paying more.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I welcome this latest U-turn by the Chancellor to freeze fuel duty, which will help my constituents, and I also welcome the cut in duty on red diesel to help our farmers. The Government’s carbon border adjustment mechanism comes into effect on 1 January. That will increase further the cost of fertiliser, which in turn will push up the price of food. Will the Chief Secretary undertake a review of that carbon border adjustment mechanism, to protect all our constituents from further food price increases?
Lucy Rigby
I am grateful for the hon. Member highlighting the measures we are taking when it comes to red diesel. He mentions fertiliser costs. We know that substantially increased fertiliser costs, as well as fuel costs, are hurting farmers. That is exactly why we are taking these measures on red diesel, cutting the duty rate by over a third per litre from just over 10p to 6.5p, which, as I said, is the lowest rate for more than 20 years.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I warmly welcome the Chief Secretary to her new role. My rural constituency does not have a regular or reliable bus service. It does not even have a single mainline train station, so my constituents are forced to rely on their cars to get to school or work and to care for relatives, not to mention the transport of goods. I welcome this modest freeze, but please will the Minister meet me to discuss North Cornwall being part of the Government’s rural fuel duty relief scheme? While we are there, perhaps I can explain how our excellent Lib Dem proposals are all fully costed.
Lucy Rigby
I am grateful to the hon. Member. I might ask that our meeting—when indeed we do meet, as I am happy to do so—is fully focused on the matters at hand.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Having worked in the oil industry, I understand the flow of oil products around the world quite well, and it is unquestionable that the Government have eased the prospect of Putin’s oil flowing into the UK’s oil market—that is beyond doubt. I have three questions for the Chief Secretary. Can she explain the Treasury’s calculation of the extent to which this move may benefit UK motorists? Can she explain why the Government have decided to do this, and can she tell us what she thinks the cost will be to the Government’s integrity and whether it is worth it?
Lucy Rigby
I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the decision on licences in the sanctions regime. These licences are specific, targeted and will be reviewed on a very regular basis. Given that he understands the flows of oil so well, he will know that licences are a very common part of the sanctions regime. The reason these licences are being put in place is to stage the impact on the economy. Indeed, the European Union is going to achieve a full ban by the end of 2026—it, too, is staging the impact. This is a sensible measure when it comes to our economy. What is totally beyond doubt is our steadfast support for Ukraine and the pressure that we continue to put, with our international allies, on Vladimir Putin.
Business of the House
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 1 June will include:
Monday 1 June—Second Reading of the Health Bill.
Tuesday 2 June—Committee of the whole House on the Armed Forces Bill.
Wednesday 3 June—Remaining stages of the Railways Bill.
Thursday 4 June—General debate on Pride Month.
Friday 5 June—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 8 June will include:
Monday 8 June—Committee of the whole House on the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill (day one).
Tuesday 9 June—Conclusion of Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.
Wednesday 10 June—Remaining stages of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network And Information Systems) Bill.
Thursday 11 June—General debate on the legacy of Jo Cox.
Friday 12 June—The House will not be sitting.
Jesse Norman
It is famously true that our present Prime Minister gets 100 times more animated and passionate about the performance of his football club every weekend than he does about trivial details of social, economic or foreign policy, and still more so when it comes to defeating the enemy from Manchester. So one would have to have a heart of stone not to congratulate the Prime Minister on the success of Arsenal football club in winning the premier league—I notice the astonishing lack of reaction from the Labour Benches. As we United fans say, only 11 more premiership wins to go, and Mikel Arteta will still be one short of Alex Ferguson.
In this world cup year, we remember with deep warmth and affection the heroes of 1966. I refer, of course, to the band of brothers who were so inspired by England’s world cup victory that they set up Westfields football club in Hereford. I pay special tribute to the legend that is Andy Morris—not ignoring his brilliant wife Sandra—who has been synonymous with Westfields ever since.
Whatever happens in Makerfield, it seems inevitable that there will soon be a leadership contest in the Labour party. The markets are spooked, the pundits are pontificating, the pollsters are rampant, but amid all the media speculation, there is one candidate—one extraordinary dark horse—who has not yet even been mentioned. That is why I am delighted, in relation to the leadership of the Labour party, to announce my strong support, in his bid for the top job, for the Leader of the House. Colleagues will have noticed a certain coyness from the Leader of the House about his own position last week in business questions. Make no mistake, Mr Speaker, that is the clear sign of a man preparing to throw his hat into the ring.
For months now, I have lived with a secret fear that the Government will have a reshuffle and the Leader of the House will be relegated from the light of the Chamber back into the stygian depths of the Labour Whips Office. Luckily, the Prime Minister has remained far too weak even to contemplate a reshuffle, but I ask colleagues across the House, and especially on the Labour Benches, to contemplate that hideous prospect—that drastic loss of warmth, and wit and wisdom from these proceedings. As Ben Jonson said of Francis Bacon, when he spoke, the fear of everyone was that he would make an end.
Some foolish and ill-advised people will say that this leadership bid is an improbable one, and possibly even, in this age of botox, TikTok and Justin Trudeau, that a Prime Minister should be constructed on more youthful, foolish, inexperienced and, dare I say it, sleeker lines. To which I cry shame! Fie upon these unimaginative gloomsters and naysayers. What fools they are. It is precisely that apparently diffident Clark Kent exterior that makes my candidate—our candidate—such a politically electrifying prospect. In a world in which a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer can seriously advance the total economic shambles of supermarket food price caps, any move is on the table. The Leader of the House can therefore immediately become leader of the Labour party. It is simple common sense; we barely even need to change the name.
Mr Speaker, you will be relieved to know that under my steady hand, the Leader of the House’s Labour leadership campaign is ready to roll. The website is in hand, the baseball caps and T-shirts have been ordered. As Hilaire Belloc said of Lord Lundy:
“The stocks were sold; the Press was squared;
The Middle Class was quite prepared.”
Donors are falling over themselves to associate themselves with this extraordinary political intervention.
The one crucial remaining question is what campaign slogan we should use. We thought about “Common sense with Campbell”, “Campbell for the country” or “All in for Alan”, but there are two slogans with which we really cannot fail. When he responds, I know the Leader of the House will want to take the opportunity to formally launch the campaign himself from the Dispatch Box, but perhaps he can also indicate which of these two slogans he prefers: is it to be “Yes, we Cam-bell”, channelling the spirit of Barack Obama, or more inclusively still, “Make Britain Campbell again”? A nation awaits, so may we have a debate in Government time on this vital question?
Mr Speaker
I remind the House that the most important game is being played on Sunday, between Bolton Wanderers and Stockport County. Good luck to Bolton!
Sir Alan Campbell
I see the shadow Leader of the House has had his Weetabix again this morning.
I extend my sympathies to the family of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan, who lost her life in a tragic incident last week. It reminds us of the price sometimes paid by the brave men and women who serve our country so well.
Tomorrow is the ninth anniversary of the horrific Manchester Arena attack, which claimed the lives of 22 people and left many more injured. I am sure all those affected remain in the thoughts of the whole House. Last year, Martyn’s law received Royal Assent, delivering on our commitment to strengthen security at public events and venues to help to prevent another tragedy from happening. I thank all the campaigners who were pivotal in delivering that legislation.
At the end of last week, the Treasury announced an independent review on access to banking to assess how changes to in-person banking services are affecting customers. The review will be chaired by Richard Lloyd, whom many Members will know. This issue is regularly raised with me by Members, and the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has access to the services that they need.
Fly-tipping is also an issue that Members have raised with me frequently. The Government are listening. Laws laid this week will require waste handlers to prove that they are qualified to transport waste. We are tightening the net on waste criminals, with tougher sentences for those illegally dumping waste and advanced background checks to put rogue operators out of business.
Members will also be pleased that we are cracking down on high street crime, rogue barber shops, vape stores, mini-marts and sweet shops linked to organised crime. They will face raids, closures and cash seizures under a new £30 million crackdown targeting money laundering, tax evasion and illegal working. Again, those issues have been raised in these sessions, which underlines the importance of the role that Members play in influencing future policy and decision making.
I hope that Members will be able to spend time in their constituencies over the recess and enjoy the hopefully warmer weather over the bank holiday. As an MP for a coastal constituency, I know how dangerous the sea can be and I want to highlight the Royal National Lifeboat Institution’s annual “Float to Live” campaign. This year’s campaign is being fronted by Euan Gray from Gateshead, who with his brother, Andrew, got caught in a notorious riptide off my constituency at Longsands beach in May last year. I pay tribute to the volunteers of Cullercoats lifeboat and Tynemouth lifeboat, and all the RNLI volunteers who tirelessly provide a critical service in coastal towns and villages across the UK.
Let me turn to the remarks made by the shadow Leader of the House. I am sure that his gratitude for Arsenal beating Manchester City is genuine coming from a dedicated Manchester United supporter—I am sure that it is genuine. He also reminded us about the heroes of 1966, the last time England won the world cup. I remind the House that England has only ever won the world cup under a Labour Government, and therefore I look forward to the world cup, which starts shortly.
On the other matter that the right hon. Gentleman seems preoccupied with—my candidature to be the Prime Minister—let me say that there is no vacancy for a Prime Minister. I thank him for his endorsement, which I am sure is well intentioned, but I should warn the House that there is a double edge here. Every candidate that the right hon. Gentleman has endorsed for the Tory leadership has either failed at the first hurdle or is failing in their leadership now.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
A number of constituents continue to really struggle as a result of Capita’s delays in processing their civil service pensions. Many of them have been retired for months without income. I know the Paymaster General has been holding Capita to account in various ways, but with it continuing to miss its own deadlines, can we have an update from the Paymaster General?
Sir Alan Campbell
As we have said before, these delays are unacceptable. That is not the service that people deserve, and resolving this issue is a matter of urgency. We have mandated a deadline of 30 June 2026 for Capita to restore all civil service pension scheme service levels to standard contractual agreements. The Government will continue to monitor this issue closely and press for swift action.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), who is usually here for business questions, is probably very glad not to be here, given Arsenal’s success. It has been very good to see teams succeed in English football who have not succeeded for some time, but it was a different case in Scotland at the weekend. I congratulate Celtic on winning the league again, but as the wife and mother of Heart of Midlothian supporters, it has been a very difficult week. I congratulate the club on its amazing season.
I thank the Leader of the House for providing us with the certainty of the business for the next sitting week—it seems to be the only certainty that we have. Who knows where we will be after that? The Prime Minister may well still be in post, but there is no doubt that his fading authority is doing the country no favours. We have seen how the bond markets have reacted to the uncertainty and chaos. I fear that this Government are becoming a little like HS2: they are moving more slowly and making things more expensive for people in this country.
While the Government lay out their vision, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that a crucial piece of the economic puzzle is still missing. We will continue to make the case for closer ties with our closest allies and trading partners in the European Union, but the Labour party cannot quite make up its mind about that policy. I note that the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), has made his pro-EU stall abundantly clear, whereas Labour’s candidate in Makerfield seems a little more unsure, despite his previous representations.
The Prime Minister’s trade deal with North Korea is impressive—I trust that he misspoke yesterday. We Liberal Democrats think that a UK-EU customs union is the single best way to start fixing the profound damage done to the British economy since Brexit, so I was disappointed that Labour MPs joined forces with Reform and the Conservatives yesterday to vote down our plans for a customs union. Those red lines are deeply damaging to our economy. Will the Leader of the House impress on the Prime Minister that, whatever his potential leadership rivals think, the Government’s EU reset Bill must include steps to negotiate such a customs union? We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will keep coming back to that issue whenever we have the opportunity to do so.
Sir Alan Campbell
As the Prime Minister acknowledged in real time yesterday, he misspoke about the trade deal, but he was absolutely clear about our relationship with Europe. There will not be a return to the customs union, the single market or freedom of movement, and the Government came into office on that basis. However, we are clear that it is in the national interest to be closer to Europe. That is good for us and good for Europe, and it is good for our security and economy.
As the hon. Lady said, an EU reset Bill will be coming through. I am sure that she will be able to put the points that she raises not just to debate, but to the test of a vote.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Sunflowers Children’s Action Group, a children’s charity in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, on winning by popular poll on my Facebook page a £2,000 donation from Bacta, the amusement and arcades representative body? Sunflowers provides activities, respite and trips for children with life-limiting illnesses and does amazing work to support families in my local area, and this donation will help it to continue to do just that.
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Sunflowers Children’s Action Group on its brilliant work supporting children and their families and on winning vital funding. We are taking action in this area with our best start in life strategy by pledging to invest £1.5 billion over the next three years to support early years.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, who was re-elected unopposed.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
As we approach the end of the domestic football season, it is only right that we congratulate Aston Villa on winning the Europa league last night. Indeed, it was only a year ago that I was celebrating Tottenham winning the Europa league. If I may say so, however, the most vital game on Sunday is Tottenham versus Everton.
I thank the House for re-electing me as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. I am glad that there will be a motion on the Order Paper to reappoint five Members to the Committee. On that basis, we will try to meet on Tuesday 2 June to consider applications. I understand that there are 11 new applications already, adding to the 42 we had left when Prorogation took place. I note that the Chairman of Ways and Means has granted two of those debates in Westminster Hall to reduce our burden. Will the Leader of the House grant time in the Chamber as soon as possible for the Backbench Business Committee? For those colleagues who are on the existing waiting list, the Committee will decide whether we continue with it or clean it out. I ask colleagues not to reapply until the Committee has made that decision.
Mr Speaker, you will know that I have been a champion of homeless people throughout my parliamentary career, and I was delighted that the Government eventually got through the abolition of the Vagrancy Act 1824 in the last Session. However, a statutory instrument is required to abolish the Vagrancy Act for good. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange for the relevant Minister to make sure that the statutory instrument is brought forward forthwith, so we can get away from a position where people who are homeless can be prosecuted for being homeless? That is unacceptable and needs to be consigned to the history books.
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the rest of the House in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his unopposed re-election as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, not just for the next year but for the rest of this Parliament. I sincerely look forward to continuing to work with him. I will endeavour to give him and the Committee as much forward notice as I can of upcoming Backbench Business days, but I advise Members to listen to his wise words about applications. I will certainly give consideration, as he requests, to using Government time for some of the debates in the queue.
The hon. Gentleman is a staunch advocate for tackling homelessness and I remind the House that he successfully led a private Member’s Bill, which is no mean achievement. I agree that no one should be criminalised for sleeping rough and that the Vagrancy Act has no place in a just society. We have committed to repealing it in full. I will draw the statutory instrument to the attention of the relevant Minister, and I will get him the update that he seeks.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
According to recent media reports, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has taken a £5 million gift from a billionaire living halfway across the world. Without the Guardian investigation, however, we would be none the wiser, and there are no controls on gifts for those campaigning before a general election is called. I remain deeply concerned, as do my constituents, that substantial funds may be making their way into British politics through the back door. Will the Leader of the House ask Ministers to consider how the Representation of the People Bill could tackle undeclared cash gifts and donations?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend says, the Representation of the People Bill will give greater transparency and security around political donations, but I will draw his concerns about the need, perhaps, to go further to the attention of the very able Minister taking that Bill through. The matters that my hon. Friend alludes to are serious allegations, and I welcome the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards looking into this matter.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I recently visited the North Cotes shooting club in my neighbouring constituency, where hundreds of my constituents gather every week to participate in their chosen sport. They tell me that there are proposals to merge section 1 and section 2 certificates for the licensing of shotguns and rifles, but they are very different. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister responsible to have a look at this issue and perhaps report back to the House?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly will arrange for Ministers to look at this issue and report back to the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, to the House. Having previously had some responsibility in Government for the issues that he raises, my view is that one does not have to be a shooter to value shooting as a sport, and to value the clubs in our local communities.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
Nobody should go to work, never to return home. On Tuesday 13 January 2026, Kenny Campbell Smart went to work at Corby steelworks and never returned home. Now that I have said his name, it will be written down and recorded in Hansard, and his name will live on forever. Today we are joined in the Gallery by Kenny’s wife Sally and his son Kian, who are determined that no other family should go through what they have been through. In the light of this, does the Leader of the House agree with them that we should do all we can to keep people safe at work, and that health and safety is not red tape, bureaucracy or a barrier to growth, but what keeps people safe at work? In the name of Kenny, his community, his workplace and his family, we should strengthen our laws so that this never happens again.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure the whole House will join me in extending our heartfelt condolences to Sally, Kian and all Kenny’s friends and family. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that health and safety in the workplace is not an inconvenience. Good health and safety practices save lives, and I will ensure that the relevant Minister writes to him to set out what further action the Government intend to take.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Nurses are at the heart of our wonderful NHS. I am delighted that two nurses from NHS Borders recently gained national recognition from the Royal College of Nursing Scotland: intensive therapy unit clinical nurse educator Karen Bacon was highly commended in the “learning in practice” award category, and Michelle Brownlee, a healthcare support worker in the ITU, was a runner-up in the nursing support worker of the year award. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Karen and Michelle, and pass on all our thanks to our hard-working nursing staff in the NHS?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will indeed join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Karen and Michelle on their exceptional achievements. He is absolutely right to celebrate the work of all our wonderful NHS nurses, and I am sure the whole House will join me in giving thanks for all the hard work that they do.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I am sorry to say that I have not been able to feel the same enthusiasm as the Prime Minister in recent days, and we are at odds over a big issue—Arsenal’s premier league victory. However, I join the majority of people in this country in wanting the champions league final, which Arsenal are participating in, to be a success for English football, so it is very upsetting to see that the game will not be free to air on TV. It is a moment for the nation to come together, get behind a great English football team and have a victory in Europe. Will the Leader of the House do what he can to ensure that the game is free to air for the nation to enjoy?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: such matches should be available for people to watch for free. I will raise his concerns with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to see if anything can be done.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Along with the stealthy silence of knives and the deadly danger of guns, crossbows, in the wrong hands, cost lives. As the Leader of the House will know, they cost the lives of Louise Hunt and her sister Hannah, who were murdered by such a weapon. I am delighted that the Government announced in March that they are going to ban the sale of new crossbows and license existing ones. That responded to calls that I and Members from across the House made following that awful event, but we have heard little more. All we have heard is that the Government will consult on the detailed arrangements. However, there is no detail on the timetable and nothing about means or method. Will the Leader of the House update the House, or will the appropriate Minister do so by means of a statement, so that we can be sure that there will be no hesitation, no obfuscation and no prevarication? Any of those things would cost still more lives.
Sir Alan Campbell
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no hesitation or prevarication, because the Government are committed to this. However, I gently say to him—again, having had some experience myself—that we can discuss these matters and all get to pretty much the same conclusion, but implementing that conclusion is often more difficult than many people think. We should not offer something that ultimately does not work. We need to make sure that such a measure has the effect that right hon. and hon. Members desire, so there is often a delay. However, I will draw his remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister, and see if we can get the update he seeks.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Denbigh youth shed, led by the inspirational Scott Jenkinson. Youth Shedz is youth-led, with young people in leadership roles shaping their own activities, ranging from upcycling old guitars to creating comfort packs for children going into care. The Government have recently published the youth justice White Paper, in which early intervention and improving consistency are clear priorities. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on support for community-led youth organisations that are engaging with our young people, so that Ministers can outline how initiatives such as Youth Shedz can access sustainable funding and can be expanded across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion the great work of Youth Shedz and similar community organisations. Their work is vital to support young people in our communities. As she rightly points out, the youth justice White Paper sets out how we can make the justice system fairer and more consistent. I will draw her remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister, and see if we can find time for such a debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before the next question, Members should be aware that I am aiming to finish business questions at about 12.15 pm, so it is unlikely that I will get everybody in, even if the questions are very short.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Would the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Jenny Rayner MBE? She has managed to raise an amazing £2 million for a new wellbeing centre locally to support young people with mental health issues and get them the support they need before a crisis is reached. We in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages are so proud of what she has achieved in raising this money and supporting our young people, so would he join me in congratulating her?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join the hon. Member in congratulating her constituent. Last week was Mental Health Awareness Week, and it is vital that we continue to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of depression and other mental health issues in young adults. The exemplary work of people in our local communities underlines how important that is to keeping young people well.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Angela and Terry, a couple from my constituency, were the proud owners of Otis, a little three-legged shih tzu dog. Angela, who is in her 80s, was walking Otis a few weeks ago when two rottweilers got loose and savaged Otis terribly. Angela took him to the vets and paid thousands of pounds, but, sadly, Otis died. It is very brave of Angela and Terry to speak out, and the community are up in arms. Please can we have a debate to talk about the owners of dangerous dogs, as it is the owners who are often the problem here, and about who pays when one dog attacks another?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. This is an upsetting case, and I know other responsible pet owners will be concerned about attacks in their communities. There are powers under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to protect the public, and we have reconvened the responsible dog ownership taskforce to explore further measures. When those measures become clearer, I am sure the House will want to debate them.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Would the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Walton and Hersham football club in my constituency? They have secured promotion to the national league south for the first time in their history—an extraordinary fourth promotion in just six seasons. At a time of concern about young people’s mental health and online harms, which I know the House will debate in future, can he provide time for a debate about supporting grassroots football clubs and sports clubs? They are a diversion away from online harms and for better mental health, as Walton and Hersham show so well.
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly congratulate Walton and Hersham football club because, like other clubs across our communities, they do such important work. Such clubs are at the heart of local communities and I think they should be commended, particularly where they offer diversion activities for young people. What the hon. Member says about the importance of sport in local communities is exactly what the Government are trying to do.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Last weekend’s march saw vile racist thugs, national figures, openly fanning the flames of hatred against British Muslim communities, saying things like, “It’s time for many Muslims to leave this country” and “This is a war—we need to get ready to fight.” There were many more vulgar and dangerous statements that I am unable to repeat in this House. The incitement of hatred and violence against British Muslims in the heart of our capital should worry us all. Will the Leader of the House allow sufficient time for a proper debate to address the dangerously rising levels of Islamophobia, protections for British Muslim communities, and the consequences for those responsible?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely condemn any disorder and inappropriate language, whoever it comes from and whoever it is directed against. We do not want to see last weekend’s scenes repeated. The Government are absolutely determined to bear down on this. We are providing additional resources to protect places of worship, including mosques. New legislation in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 will address large repeated protests, as well as protests outside places of worship. My hon. Friend has been around long enough to know that if he seeks an Adjournment debate on these matters, he will be among many others who will also want to raise these concerns.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
In his business statement, the Leader of the House rightly referred to fly-tipping waste criminals. Will he allow for a debate in Government time to consider a different sort of waste perpetrated on our constituents, which is that arising from so-called energy-from-waste plants, otherwise known waste incinerators, which are more polluting than burning coal and for which the UK is already overprovisioned. We have too many of these things, they are not wanted and it is time for a moratorium. Can we have a debate on that?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will give the right hon. Gentleman a commitment that I will raise the issue with the relevant Ministers and see if we can find some time to debate these matters, should time allow.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
My constituents continue to face delays in accessing driving tests post covid. The Government’s important consultation covers tackling bot activity, bulk and speculative bookings, and improving access to genuine test slots. A driving instructor in Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney has expressed his concerns about potential booking restrictions for driving instructors and issues around examiner recruitment. Will a Transport Minister please update the House and confirm that those issues will be considered in the round?
Sir Alan Campbell
We have doubled the number of trainers for examiners, and provided 120,000 additional tests between June last year and January this year. We have also tightened up the rules on who can book and reschedule tests to avoid exploitation by online bots and re-selling, but I will draw my hon. Friend’s remarks to the attention of a Transport Minister. He can either seek a meeting with the Minister or we will get an update for the House.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
May I take this opportunity to congratulate both the SNP in Scotland on an historic fifth landslide election and Plaid Cymru on its historic win in the Welsh Senedd elections? That brings together the north of Ireland, Wales and Scotland as being represented by Governments who believe not only believe in the people, but in unlocking the nations’ potential by being independent nations in the future. The north of Ireland has a legal mandate to hold a referendum on its future. However, Scotland does not share that legal mandate. That is a glaring omission from the Scotland Act 1998, so can we have a debate on the constitutional crisis the UK now finds itself in, where Scotland has spoken with the highest ever majority for independence parties but is denied the democratic route—[Interruption] I’m sorry, but I think we are in a democratic Chamber here—to express the will of the people of Scotland?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government have no plans to change the current position. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking a constitutional crisis, it will not be of our causing —it will be of the SNP’s.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
On 26 February I raised with the Leader of the House my fears that the unreliability of the postal service might affect constituents in Glasgow West who wish to vote by post in the Scottish Parliament elections. Since then, I have been advised of a situation where a proxy vote application was received some days after the deadline, although the envelope was very clearly postmarked several days before the deadline. Will my right hon. Friend assist me in arranging a meeting with the appropriate Minister to discuss a simple amendment to the Representation of the People Bill that would grant returning officers limited discretion in such cases?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend will have heard, the Representation of the People Bill contains measures to increase the resilience of the proxy and postal voting systems. That is also a constant theme of the defending democracy taskforce. If my hon. Friend seeks a meeting with the relevant Minster, I am happy to arrange one.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
May I begin by sending my commiserations to the family and friends of Scottish rugby legend Scott Hastings, who died recently aged only 61? Scott was an inspirational figure, both on and off the pitch.
I am sure the Leader of the House shares my concern about the outbreak of Ebola that is affecting both the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda. Hundreds of people have already died. Can we have an oral statement when the House returns to hear what the UK is doing to prevent the spread of the outbreak? The UK played a pivotal role in stopping the previous serious outbreak, in Sierra Leone, and must have much to offer by way of expertise in relation to this one.
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the right hon. Gentleman in his remarks about Scott Hastings. Rugby is not my sport, but I recognise very much the contribution that Scott Hastings made. We send our condolences to his friends and family.
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important matter on the outbreak of Ebola, which the UK Government take very seriously indeed. Through the NHS, we have safe procedures in place in any such case of it coming to the UK, and specialist centres where people can be looked after. He asks what we are doing to help other countries. The Government are reacting quickly; the Foreign Secretary has announced a further £20 million to help contain the Ebola outbreak.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The levels of congestion on Wigginton Road are unacceptable. Residents’ air quality is affected, people are late for their hospital appointments and our whole city is snarled up because the hospital does not have a sufficient transport plan. Will the Leader of the House impress on the Secretaries of State for Health and Transport the need for hospital transport plans, and can we have a debate in Government time on hospital-induced congestion?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to be concerned about traffic and congestion in her constituency. Responsibility for managing traffic on local roads, including those near hospitals, rests with local authorities. However, she is right that it is about not just local authorities but ensuring that everyone who has a role to play actually plays that role. I will raise the matter with the relevant Secretaries of State, as she asks.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The national cancer plan has many ambitious and urgently needed targets, but they will only be delivered when the Government properly invest in the NHS workforce. Healthcare professionals and charities want clarity on when the Government will commit to this. Can the Leader of the House urge his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to update the House on when the workforce plan will be launched?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Member raises an important point. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that we have the workforce in place to deliver the changes in the NHS that are necessary in cancer and other areas. We are delivering record investment, and waiting lists are down by over 400,000—I think that is the biggest drop for some time. I will raise his specific concerns about when the plan will be launched with Ministers, and get a response for him.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
For years now, I have been trying to help a constituent who has been the subject of repeated identity fraud via their NHS records. Meetings with Ministers have been cancelled or refused, and questions and letters to the Home Office, Ministry of Justice and Department of Health and Social Care always result in the same response: it is not their responsibility and there is nothing they can do. This is impacting on my constituent’s daily life in so many ways. Will my right hon. Friend please use his good offices to help?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear of the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent; if she lets me have the details, I will raise it with the relevant Departments and see if we can get the answers that she seeks.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I want to raise a case of gift card fraud. My constituent Nigel Bannister was recently given a gift card as a birthday present, but, by the time he came to redeem it, the money had gone. This is a rising trend, where people are taking a photograph of the cards and stealing the PIN details, and claiming them before someone else can. The cards are obviously publicly available in supermarkets. I ask for a debate in Government time on this rising trend, which caused £18.5 million of losses in 2023-34.
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this concerning matter. I will take it up with the relevant Departments to see what level of awareness there is and what they intend to do about it. Should she seek an Adjournment debate, she could also hear directly from a Minister.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
A recently elected Reform councillor in my constituency believes that the best way to regenerate Eccles, which he described as a problem area, is to turn it into the UK’s Dubai. It might surprise him to learn that the council has already brought the town centre into public hands and, during the consultation, not one single resident raised the prospect of “Dubeccles”. Our communities need regeneration led by genuine involvement of local people, like that being in delivered in Brookhouse and Peel Green through Pride in Place. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time to ensure that local people lead in the regeneration of their towns?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a great champion for regeneration in his area. His commitment stands in stark contrast to the approach of the Reform councillor he refers to. As my hon. Friend and the whole House will know, the Government are already taking action to regenerate our high streets, with £5.8 billion of Pride in Place funding to deliver for places like Eccles. I will think about whether we can find some time to debate the success of that programme.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
In February, I asked the Minister for Care about access to dentists in rural areas. He said from the Dispatch Box that he would write to me with the numbers of how many more dental treatments have been provided in my constituency and integrated care board area. I was concerned when the Minister replied that Somerset ICB delivered 5,559 fewer NHS dental treatments in the seven months to October 2025 compared with the same period before the election—that is 4% fewer dental treatments in Somerset under Labour. Will the Minister give a statement to explain why dental services in Somerset are getting worse under this Government?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am not sure the hon. Gentleman should necessarily draw that conclusion; as he will be aware, the Government are committed to improving access, but, as he will also know, it takes time to turn around the system that we inherited. He is right that if he gets information from Ministers, he should also get an update on the progress that we are making. I will ensure that he gets that from the relevant Minister.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I pay tribute to Councillor Angela Loughran, who has sadly passed away. She first represented the Manor ward in ’97, and worked tirelessly for her residents for nearly 30 years. A previous teacher, she was a true public servant, and she will be greatly missed by her friends, family and the wider Stafford community.
In a recent survey of more than 500 residents, 61% cited the return of an indoor market in Stafford as their top priority. I am campaigning with residents for that: a lively, all-day destination that draws in people from across the town and beyond, and will create local jobs. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the contribution of indoor markets to local economies in towns like Stafford?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Councillor Angela Loughran. Local figures like her truly embody the spirit of the community they serve. I also recognise the importance of the issue that my hon. Friend raises for the people of Stafford. I encourage her to apply for a Westminster Hall debate on the impact that indoor markets can have on local economies, as I am sure there will be others who share her enthusiasm and support for such markets.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
A student on a night out is stabbed multiple times with a 21 cm knife. He is lying in a pool of his own blood, literally drowning in his blood. The police come to the scene, but instead of doing everything they can to save his life, they handcuff and arrest the lad because there is an accusation of racial abuse. This is a scandal. Will the Home Secretary come to House and say what she is doing to investigate the way that the police conducted this matter, and can we have a debate on two-tier policing, which is doing so much to undermine respect for the police and the rule of law in this country?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important and distressing matter. I assume that the police investigation is ongoing. There are ways in which the actions of the police, if they were as he describes, can be investigated. I am not going to comment on that and interfere, but I can tell him that the Home Secretary takes absolutely seriously not just the issue of knife crime but the protection of citizens, whoever they happen to be.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Last weekend, West Lothian Danceworld, founded and led by Hazel Saunders Dunn, celebrated its 40th birthday with shows at the prestigious Usher Hall in Edinburgh. Over the years, Danceworld has given thousands of young people the chance to showcase their talent, refine their dance skills, build confidence and forge lifelong friendships. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating West Lothian Danceworld, and in wishing all the students and teachers every success for the next 40 years?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating West Lothian Danceworld on its remarkable 40th anniversary. As she points out, dance is a brilliant way to support young people and build their confidence. I praise not just the students but the teachers for their commitment, and I wish them every success in the future.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
While there has been talk of the shenanigans of some minor football teams, it would be remiss of me not to mention the mighty Bromley FC, the only English football league club that is blessed with a Conservative MP and that has been crowned the champion of league two—probably as a direct result.
At one of my surgeries recently, I met Lorraine and Satvir, who are both Vodafone franchise holders and employ a lot of people in the area. They signed a contract in good faith relating to fluctuation of commission rates, so when Vodafone cut that commission rate by 50%, they were left out of pocket, and they feel that they were treated badly. Can we have a debate to discuss franchising regulations?
Sir Alan Campbell
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman seeks an Adjournment debate on the subject, because if that is happening in his constituency, it might be happening elsewhere. If so, I am sure that there will be other colleagues who want to hear directly from a Minister on what the Government intend to do about it.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the remarkable work of the Susan Vickers Foundation? Its care-experienced team is changing the lives of care-experienced families, including by providing free rail travel and cinema access, thanks to partnership with London Northwestern Railway, West Midlands Railway and Cineworld. Will he also commend Rethink Mental Illness and all the community groups involved at the Hub at Wolverhampton station, as they mark their first year helping thousands across our city?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in recognising the work of the Susan Vickers Foundation, Rethink Mental Illness and everyone involved in the Hub at Wolverhampton station. Last week was Mental Health Awareness Week, and this year’s theme was action. Charities and community organisations play a huge role in supporting those struggling with mental illness, and I thank everyone involved for their commitment and service.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Earlier this month, I was delighted to at last receive a response from the Department for Work and Pensions to a letter I wrote on 25 November last year, raising a constituent’s case. That is more than a five-month delay; the original acknowledgment said that it aimed to respond within 15 days. Such a delay is unacceptable, and this is by no means an isolated case; I have had multi-month delays in several other cases. What are the Government doing to improve departmental complaint processing times, so that constituents and MPs get a response within a reasonable timeframe?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady will know that I am keen for Departments to respond in time and fully to MPs, because that is part of their job. Of course, some Departments will find it more difficult to respond, not just because of the complexity of the issues involved, but because of the number of letters and parliamentary questions that they get. However, I will draw her remarks to the attention of not just that Department but other Departments. We constantly remind them of the need to maintain a standard.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
According to a CBI report published in 2025, the contribution of the wood panel industry to the UK economy was £1.1 billion gross value added. Given that significant contribution, will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on how the Government’s industrial strategy will support the UK timber and wood sector, including through measures to strengthen domestic supply chains, increase the use of sustainable British timber in construction, and support rural jobs and net zero ambitions?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise those matters on behalf of her constituents, and others in rural areas. I will raise them with the relevant Minister and get an update on how the Government intend to make progress on this matter.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Yesterday, the Climate Change Committee laid out in stark terms the risks that we face as a country if we do not tackle the impact of climate change; one of those was drought. That is especially pertinent in Mid Sussex and across the south-east, which is extremely water scarce. South East Water is already warning about its ability to meet the demands of a growing population. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how the Government intend to reconcile their housing targets with the region’s finite water resources?
Sir Alan Campbell
As the hon. Lady will know, the Government intend to bring forward a water Bill in this Session. She will be able to raise her concerns directly as that legislation makes progress.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Kent Fire and Rescue Service will shortly launch a consultation on its modernisation as a result of a shortfall in funding. As a former public sector worker, I recognise the importance of reforming our emergency services to ensure that they remain effective and efficient. It is equally vital that services respond to the evolving risks faced by local communities, particularly in rural areas. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the importance of fire and rescue services, their funding, and the steps needed to protect provision in rural communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. I place on record our thanks to firefighters and fire service staff for all the work they do. He will know that the Government are committed to working with the fire sector to ensure that the funding system remains fair and responsive, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister hears his concerns.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Woking’s only brewery, Thurstons, is sadly closing down. The owner, John Mintram, said:
“It’s all getting too expensive…People are feeling the squeeze—you can’t sell £8 or £9 pints.”
Will the Government please apologise to the owners and customers of Thurstons for what they have done to the hospitality sector, and agree to a debate on ensuring that they properly support the brewing and pub sector in the future?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The Government have done, and continue to do, a great deal to support the sector, but the hospitality sector knows, and he will know, that the best way to help the sector is to get the economy growing, so that people have money in their pockets, and can spend it in the sector. The first priority of the Government is to tackle the cost of living crisis and get the economy growing.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Hoarding disorder is a distinct mental health condition, although it is often confused with obsessive compulsive disorder. Hoarding disorder causes individuals to fill their home with items that they feel unable to discard, even when it causes danger and a risk of physical injury. It is believed that up to 3 million adults in the UK suffer from this chronic and progressive condition. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is time to have a national hoarding strategy offering a consistent, comprehensive approach to care, and prioritising early intervention and clear pathways for specialist mental health support?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter; the impact of hoarding can be severe. There are no plans for a specific hoarding strategy, but the Government have announced plans for a new mental health strategy, which will seek to provide the right support to people with a mental health condition. The call for evidence is live now, and I encourage him and others across the House to contribute.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
My young constituent Alex is paralysed after a dreadful road accident a couple of months ago. He wants to return to Loughborough University for his third-year studies as soon as possible. He has been told by the wheelchair services team that he has to have a 27 kg wheelchair to start with, before he can get a different one, as “that’s what everyone gets”, even though he will never have the strength to operate it, as it is too heavy. The staff know this, Alex knows this and his parents know it, but there seems to be no way to stop the madness and waste, and to get a wheelchair that meets his needs. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to review the NHS wheelchair policy, so that patients have appropriate equipment from the outset, rather than time and money being wasted and patients and their families being caused such unnecessary distress?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear of Alex’s experience, because the Government want individuals to get the support that they need, not just generalised support. I hope that the people who make these decisions listen to what the hon. Lady has said, but I will also draw the matter to the attention of the relevant Minister and get the hon. Lady an update on what the Government are prepared to do on this.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Recently, I attended an incredibly informative special educational needs and disability roundtable organised by PEGiS—the Parent Engagement Group in Stoke-on-Trent. As we know in this place, we make our best policy when we listen to people with real, lived experienced, so will the Leader of the House please join me in recognising the incredible work of Michelle and the PEGiS team, who have worked tirelessly for many years to ensure that the voices of families are heard?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in recognising the incredible work of Michelle and the Parent Engagement Group in Stoke for their work to make sure that the voices of families are heard. The Government are absolutely committed to making sure that the SEND system works for every child, and our education for all Bill, announced in the King’s Speech, will make sure that every child is able to thrive.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Hon. Members will remember the harrowing images of three-year-old Alan Kurdi, who was found lying dead on a beach in Turkey after drowning when the boat that he and his family were on sunk. A Reform candidate at the 7 May elections, in describing that situation, blamed it on his parents’ “greed”. That candidate was very close to winning. Today, East Sussex Conservatives have done a deal that has allowed Reform to take control of East Sussex county council, despite Eastbourne voting against that. Will the Leader of the House grant an urgent debate on how we can ensure that towns like Eastbourne are governed by those they actually voted for?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am appalled to hear of the comments of the Reform candidate. As for Reform coming together with the local Conservative group to run the council, I just advise both of them: be careful who you get into bed with.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
There has been some talk about football. I think we should all be celebrating the glorious victory of Raith Rovers in the Challenge cup.
Results from a survey of Burntisland residents that I conducted suggest that 87% of people experience difficulties using Burntisland station, due to the lack of step-free access. For railway users across my constituency, including those in Cowdenbeath and Kinghorn, who face similar barriers, that is unacceptable. It makes life harder for those with mobility issues, luggage, buggies and bikes. Does the Leader of the House agree that Network Rail should prioritise accessibility upgrades at those stations, and will he make time for a debate on railway accessibility?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are absolutely committed to improving the accessibility of the railway, including through the Access for All programme, and I am sure that Network Rail will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments. The Railways Bill makes it a legal requirement that the interests of passengers, including those with accessibility needs, are at the heart of decision making on the railway. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to make her voice heard during proceedings on that Bill.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
During a recent visit to DHL in my constituency, I heard yet again about the growing financial burden of the Merseyflow bridge tolls on those travelling to work. DHL wants to expand its operation in Runcorn and double its workforce, but it is struggling to attract people. The bridge tolls have become a costly barrier to employment and economic growth. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the economic impact of the bridge tolls in communities such as Runcorn and Helsby?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are absolutely clear that we want to see the economy grow and companies grow, and nothing should get in the way of that. I will draw the hon. Member’s remarks to the attention of the relevant Transport Minister, but she might also want to seek an Adjournment debate, in which she can hear directly from the Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
For the final question, I call Laurence Turner.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Birmingham Northfield and across the country, there are many reports of inappropriate houses in multiple occupation that prove actually to be poor-quality supported exempt accommodation. At its best, SEA can provide a valuable service, but at its worst it can be a byword for neglect, antisocial behaviour, exploitation and serious organised crime. Please can parliamentary time be found to discuss the need to bring forward proper regulation and end the unacceptable blight on the lives of many of our constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising again a matter that has been raised with me on a number of occasions. Local authorities have planning powers to limit the proliferation of HMOs, but we keep regulations under review. I will consider his request for time for a debate, but I will also ensure that the relevant Minister hears his comments and gives him an update urgently.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That concludes business questions. I have a list of Members who were unsuccessful in catching my eye today, but may I ask Members to reflect on the length of their questions? With such long questions, it is really difficult to get everybody in.
Middle East: Economic Response
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the Chancellor to make her statement, I have to say to her that Mr Speaker has checked the ministerial code, which makes it clear that important policy announcements should be made in the first instance in this House when it is sitting. This House and its Members should be the first to know what the Government are doing—not TikTok. Posting videos on social media to announce new policies before informing this House is not in line with the Government’s own rules. This is a new parliamentary Session and Ministers must do better. I call the Chancellor.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s economic response to the war in Iran and the action that we are taking to support families and businesses with rising costs.
The Government have the right economic plan. I said I would grow the economy, and last week the Office for National Statistics confirmed that Britain’s economy was the fastest-growing in the G7 for the first quarter of this year. We beat the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast in the spring, with economic growth at 0.6% in the three months to March. And because of the resilience of our economy, this week the International Monetary Fund upgraded Britain’s forecast for this year.
I said I would cut borrowing. Borrowing last year was £20 billion lower than the previous year, and the latest forecasts show it falling in every year of this Parliament. The IMF has backed our economic plan, saying that the Government’s fiscal framework strikes
“a good balance between deficit reduction and growth-friendly spending”.
I said I would cut the cost of living. Since the election, interest rates have been cut six times; real wages have continued to rise in every single month since I became Chancellor; and yesterday the ONS confirmed that inflation fell faster than expected in April, making the UK the only G7 economy where inflation fell last month.
We have the right economic plan, but the conflict in the middle east poses a significant challenge to the world’s economy, including our own. I have not shied away from my criticism of the war; I believe it to have been a mistake. Nor have I ignored the costs that it will bring to bear on the British people. I have been clear-eyed about my duty to do what I can to support families and businesses; to be responsive to a changing world, and responsible in the national interest.
Next week, Ofgem will confirm the level of the energy price cap that will apply from July. I know that any increase will be felt by families. Because of the decision I made in last year’s Budget to cut £150 from energy bills, we have lessened the impact of rising prices, and current external forecasts suggest that the cap from July will be at a similar level to the cap in April last year. We stand ready to act if market conditions worsen significantly later this year, and I have been leading cross-Government contingency work on the design of potential future targeted and temporary support.
For businesses, any support will also need to be carefully targeted at the firms most exposed to the crisis, but although many firms have been insulated from recent price rises through fixed-price contracts, there are sectors that face particular structural issues related to energy costs. That is why we have already increased support for our most energy-intensive industries through the British industry competitiveness scheme, which we have brought forward. It is also why we have built resilience in our critical infrastructure and industrial strategy sectors, where supply chains are critical for growth and security.
Following representations from my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) and for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan), and building on the good work of the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), I am today establishing a £350 million critical chemicals resilience fund to support strategically important producers. Having listened to hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), as well as workers represented by the GMB union, I am today announcing a new £120 million fund to help our historic ceramics sector, helping it to increase efficiency and drive down energy costs. We will always stand up for British industry and British jobs.
This week, the Government have also set out additional, targeted support for those businesses most exposed to rising fuel costs. We are granting hauliers a 12-month road tax holiday for heavy goods vehicles, saving the typical heavy lorry up to £912. To support farmers and the rail freight industry, I have decided to cut duty on red diesel by over a third until the end of this year, and having heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) and the trade union Unison, I can today announce a 10p per mile increase in tax-free mileage rates, backdated to April 2026. This will benefit those who need to drive for work, from care workers to plumbers.
When a country faces challenges because of higher oil and gas prices, we must ensure that those who benefit from increased prices and volatility pay their fair share. In my first Budget, I extended and increased the energy profits levy. Last year, I announced a new permanent windfall tax regime on oil and gas prices. Last month, I increased the electricity generator levy, alongside further action to weaken the link between high gas prices and electricity prices. Today, I am bringing forward specific changes to the taxation of foreign branch profits, changing how companies are taxed in relation to their overseas activities. Currently, some oil and gas groups that operate overseas through foreign branches have structured their tax affairs in a way that ensures they pay little or no corporation tax on their UK energy trading profits. Today, we are putting an end to that practice. We expect these reforms to raise hundreds of millions of pounds a year and fund the package of measures set out today, with costings certified by the OBR forecast in the usual way.
I know the pressure that family finances are under, which is why I have already taken action to provide help. I have increased the national living wage and the national minimum wage to their highest rates ever, frozen prescription charges for two years in a row, and frozen rail fares for the first time in 30 years. I have also taken £150 off energy bills, which contributed to last month’s fall in inflation. However, I want to go further, and today I am taking further action to ease the burden on family finances.
First, on fuel duty, I have already extended the 5p cut twice since the election. I can confirm today that there will be no rise in fuel duty this year, recognising the pressure that the war has put on fuel prices.
Secondly, I know that the cost of the weekly shop is often one of the biggest worries for families, so last month I met supermarkets to urge them to do all they can to keep prices low. Today I am taking action by suspending tariffs on over 100 different foods sold in supermarkets. I am clear that I expect supermarkets to pass those savings on in full to their customers.
Thirdly, I will not tolerate any company exploiting the current situation to make excess profits at consumers’ expense. As such, I am bringing forward tough new powers so that the Competition and Markets Authority and other regulators can take action when firms break the rules.
Fourthly, for many families, driving is not always an option. Buses are the most popular form of public transport in Britain, with over 4 billion journeys made last year. I have already extended the £3 bus fare cap to March 2027, and today I can confirm that bus travel across England will be free for children aged between five and 15 throughout August.
Finally, I recognise that what matters for families is not just getting by, but being able to enjoy time together without worrying about the next bill. That is why I am launching the great British summer savings scheme, to help families and to support our hospitality sector. I can today announce a temporary cut in the rate of VAT on summer attractions from 20% to 5% over the summer holidays. This will apply to ticket prices for both adults and children, covering attractions such as fairs, theme parks, zoos and museums. It will include children’s tickets for cinemas, concerts, soft play and the theatre, and it will also cut the cost of children’s meals in restaurants and cafés from 20% VAT to 5%. These changes will apply across the UK from the start of the Scottish school holidays on 25 June and will run until the end of the school holidays in England, Wales and Northern Ireland on 1 September.
This Government have the right economic plan. We promised to grow the economy, and we have. We promised to cut inflation, and we have. We promised to cut the cost of living, and we are—promises made by a Labour Government, promises delivered by a Labour Government. I commend this statement to the House.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement—although the press, of course, got even more advanced sight of it.
The decision taken to cancel the increase in fuel duty is welcome—it has been a long time coming. The Conservative party has been campaigning against the fuel duty rise for months, but the Chancellor has defended that policy repeatedly, leaving motorists and businesses worried about even higher fuel prices in September. It was always obvious that the fuel duty increase would need to be cancelled—obvious to everyone except the Chancellor. Why did she fight us on fuel duty for so long? Why has she been so hellbent on raising fuel duty during an energy crisis?
Well, the inevitable U-turn has finally come, but it is astonishing to hear the Chancellor claiming that the Government can afford to help households because the forecasts have improved. Is she seriously suggesting that the economic outlook is now better than at the time of the last fiscal forecasts when we have had the Iran conflict, to which our economy is highly exposed thanks to this Government’s ruinous choices? The Chancellor has just pointed to the IMF forecast being upgraded this week. Let us be very clear about what is going on here: the IMF adjusted its growth forecast for this year up slightly to 1%, but until April it was forecasting 1.3%. Where exactly is the supposed growth dividend? Will the Chancellor directly address that point?
This is exactly the same game that the Government played last year when they U-turned on cuts to the winter fuel payment. They claimed then that they were U-turning because the economy was improving when, of course, they were doing it due to political pressure. Nobody bought it then and nobody is buying it now. Once again, we have a weak Government caving in to the inevitable after spending months defending a truly terrible decision.
The Chancellor claims that the measures announced today will be funded by a number of different tax measures, but most of the ones she mentions are already in place and baked into the OBR’s forecasts. Given that the Chancellor has not announced any measures to control Government spending, will she confirm that, in fact, the measures that she is announcing today will be funded, at least in part, by yet more Government borrowing? Will she also confirm whether fuel duty rates will still rise to the same level as previously planned after December, or will today’s announcement mean a permanent reduction in fuel duty?
Although we in the Opposition welcome some of the measures that the Chancellor has taken today, such as the increase in mileage allowances, it is all very minor compared with the inflation this Government have fuelled since coming into office and the tax rises that the Chancellor has imposed. Today’s announcements will bring little comfort to the hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs, the countless businesses that have folded and the high streets that are now hollowed out. The reality is that we are in a terrible position to deal with the consequences of the latest energy crisis, thanks to the actions that this Government have taken.
The Chancellor claimed that growth is up; it is actually down. She claimed that borrowing is down; it is 75% up compared with the plans that she inherited. She claimed that she is fighting inflation; we have the highest inflation in the G7. She claimed that she is cutting energy bills; energy bills have gone up under this Labour Government. And of course, she did not mention unemployment.
On energy, this Government have made a conscious decision not to exploit our own natural resources in the North sea, weakening our economy and our energy security while importing oil from Putin’s Russia at the cost of Ukrainian lives. Families and businesses are facing rising costs and rising taxes. People are losing their jobs. The country is hurting. If the Chancellor were serious about the challenges we face, she would commit to getting spending down, tackling the benefits bill and getting taxes down to strengthen our economy. Yet thanks to the Chancellor’s mistakes and the weakness of this dying Government, today’s statement is all we get. Does the Chancellor really think that that is enough?
Rachel Reeves
Let me take the issues that the shadow Chancellor has raised. On fuel duty, when I became Chancellor of the Exchequer, the freeze in fuel duty was due to expire, under the plan set out in the Conservatives’ final Budget, within a matter of months. I have frozen fuel duty twice already and I have frozen it again today; indeed, I have frozen it with more than three months to go before the increase was due to happen, giving people plenty of time.
I have always said, since the middle east conflict began, that I would keep an eye on what was happening to oil and gas prices and set out plans ahead of the change due to come into effect in September. That is exactly what I have done. I have also gone further in three specific areas, with additional support for hauliers, additional support for red diesel—particularly helping the rail freight industry and farmers—and the higher mileage rates. The shadow chancellor says he welcomes the changes on mileage rates. It is the first time they have been increased since 2011, so if he welcomes them so much, why did the Conservatives not increase them when they had 14 years in government?
On the Iran conflict, let us remember that this is a war that the UK did not start and this Government chose not to join, whereas the Conservatives and Reform were cheering on the conflict every step of the way. The impact on the UK and global economies would be much more severe if we had heeded the pleas of Reform and the Conservatives to join that conflict.
The shadow Chancellor talks about inflation and growth. Yesterday, the numbers showed that inflation had fallen; we are the only country in the G7 where inflation fell last month. The IMF has revised up our growth forecast and we had the fastest growth of the G7 in the first quarter of this year. The shadow Chancellor asks whether that will be paid for with new borrowing. No, it will not. If he had been listening, he would have heard the changes we are making around the foreign branch exemption. That will raise hundreds of millions of pounds a year, which is why we are able to afford the package that we have announced today.
The shadow Chancellor mentioned high streets. Because of the Pride in Place money that I announced at the Budget, the banking hubs and the changes that we made to business rates, which have seen those rates for retail and hospitality come down significantly compared with the plans we inherited from the Conservative Government, we can reinvigorate our high streets.
The shadow Chancellor mentioned borrowing. Borrowing has fallen below 5% for the first time since 2019 because of the actions that I have taken as Chancellor. Borrowing is expected to fall in every year of this Parliament—very different from what happened under the Conservatives. Employment and activity remain in the top half of the OECD and the G7. The biggest benefits boom came under the last Conservative Government, when the shadow Chancellor was the Work and Pensions Secretary.
Oil and gas will play an important role in our economy for many years to come, but we also need to invest in renewable energy, which is why we announced yesterday restrictions in the number of judicial reviews, which are holding up investment in clean energy. It is a shame that the Conservatives voted against our Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and it is a shame that the Liberal Democrats abstained on it. We are determined to get Britain building, including building the energy infrastructure we need to get bills down.
Just a couple of weeks ago, I announced changes around tie-backs to make it easier for oil and gas companies to exploit their reserves of oil and gas in the North sea. Jackdaw and Rosebank would have gone ahead if it had not been for the last Government messing up the way they legislated. We will shortly announce the decisions, which the Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero will make. I am very clear that oil and gas will play an important role in the UK for many years to come, adding to our energy security alongside investment in nuclear, small modular reactors, floating offshore wind and onshore wind and solar, opposed by the Conservative party.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It never fails to amaze me that the shadow Chancellor tries to lecture this Government on inflation when many of us were here in September 2022 when the Conservative party crashed the economy. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s interventions. I am particularly interested in the cut in VAT in the leisure sector, and I hope that she will commission a full study from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury about the impact, because it could be a great way to fuel, promote and keep our stretched leisure and hospitality sector going. Will she commit to that?
Rachel Reeves
I agree with my hon. Friend that we will take no lessons from the Conservatives on inflation, when it reached more than 11% when they were last in office. On VAT in the leisure sector, we are making the changes from 25 June right until 1 September to help boost the hospitality sector but also, crucially, to help families during the summer. Our expectation is that this will cost taxpayers money, but it is funded through the changes that we are making around the foreign branch exemption, so companies cannot book losses overseas to avoid paying their fair share of corporation tax here in Britain.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I feel as though we are slightly through the looking glass. For six months, we Liberal Democrats have been calling for an emergency temporary VAT cut for hospitality, leisure and attractions, and our pledge was fully funded. For weeks, we have been calling for an emergency transport package, fully funded using the additional revenue from higher VAT rates and the EPL. All that time, we were told repeatedly that it was impossible to do those things and there was no additional money. Somehow, with the prospect of a by-election in Makerfield and the Prime Minister’s political life being on the line, the money has been found.
Let me ask the Chancellor two questions. First, I genuinely welcome the Government’s focus on the cost of food, which is of huge concern to the constituents of Members of all political parties. However, is there any risk that short-term gain might result in long-term pain? In looking at the tariffs, has the Chancellor had any conversations with the food manufacturing industry about whether it can remain competitive? Does removing the tariffs inadvertently risk undermining our food manufacturing sector? If there is a risk, will she look at our plans for a good food Bill and for promoting nature-friendly farming? I ask that question in the spirit of constructive opposition.
Secondly, the Chancellor and her Ministers will know that we are due to have a very hot summer. That means huge demand for outdoor attractions, because children will want to be outside in the hot weather. Indoor attractions, such as soft play centres, will not benefit so much, because there will not be much demand for them in the summer months, but there will be in the winter months. Will the Chancellor look carefully at the differences within the sector? Children are priced out of play when they need to go indoors in the winter months, but not so much in the summer months.
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Lady for those questions. I am not sure whether she welcomes the changes around the foreign branch exemption, which is what will pay for the policies announced today by ensuring that companies pay their fair share of tax in the UK. Unless we can say where the money will come from, all that results is higher inflation and interest rates in the future. That is why I have always been clear that everything I will announce will be fully costed and fully funded.
On food, the hon. Lady cannot both say that she welcomes help with the cost of living, and then be a bit uncertain about tariff reductions. We have focused the tariff reductions on food products and agrifoods that we do not produce in significant quantities in the UK. We work very closely with the Department for Business and Trade in identifying those sectors.
On indoor and outdoor summer activities, I have had enough family holidays in the UK to know that there are plenty of days when it rains. I am sure that the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), will be visiting a soft play centre soon.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on ceramics. I thank the Chancellor for today’s announcement, and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) for their support. This is a big step towards support for a sector that offers so much to this country. I thank Sharon Yates and Finbar Bowie from the GMB, as well as Rob Flello and Hannah Ault from Ceramics UK, for their leadership in this matter.
May I extract from the Chancellor a commitment that this is the next stage of a new partnership between the UK Government and UK ceramics? Today’s announcement will absolutely help us survive, but with more working together, we can thrive as a sector and do our bit to boost exports, boost growth and create well-paid, unionised jobs in this country.
Rachel Reeves
I pay genuine tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on behalf of businesses and working people in his constituency, to the other Stoke MPs, and to my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). They have made the case powerfully and convincingly. I absolutely commit to working with Ceramics UK, the GMB, the MPs and the wider sector to ensure that the ceramics industry thrives in the UK.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
On tariffs, I want to explore what the Chancellor said about “significant quantities”, because a significant quantity for a supermarket can be of a completely different scale from a significant quantity for a small South Shropshire farmer. Will the Chancellor guarantee that no South Shropshire farmers will be undercut by the measures on tariffs, and that none of the supermarkets will pass on the cost cuts to British farmers?
Rachel Reeves
It is important that we help our constituents with the cost of living. The tariff reductions that I have announced today will save the British shopper £700 million. That is a significant reduction in the cost of the weekly shop for families across our country. We have chosen the tariff lines carefully. The full details will be published, and we will consult over the next week or two to ensure that we get them exactly right, but we have worked hard to make sure that the reductions do not affect British farmers. That is why we are also helping British farmers with the changes we have made on red diesel.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which is great news for the cafés and restaurants in my constituency, of which there are many, and for the very many showmen and women who run Scotland’s and Britain’s great fairs. I note that the Conservative party objects to all this, but it is the Conservative party that left us with debt to GDP of almost 100%. There is nothing progressive in running debt levels like that, and the Chancellor is right to focus on paying that debt off.
Many of my Glasgow East constituents rely on cars and vans to get to work and do their work. They face extortionate charging for parking in town from the SNP council, which is utterly anti-car, and regular bills for repairing their cars and vans from all the potholes. Will my right hon. Friend set out how she is helping hard-pressed car and van drivers in Glasgow?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is nothing progressive about piling up the debt that future generations will have to pay; that is why our fiscal rules are getting the debt and deficit down while enabling us to invest in our country’s infrastructure and public services. On helping people with the cost of driving, we have frozen fuel duty until the end of this year, but recognising that some people rely on their cars and vans more than others, we have also taken off the HGV tax for this year, saving HGV drivers up to just over £900 a year, and cut the duty on red diesel by more than a third. We have also increased the tax-free mileage rates to help the employed and the self-employed with the cost of fuel.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The announcement on red diesel will be welcomed by my farming constituents, who will await the details on the tariffs the Chancellor has cited with a great deal of interest and a certain amount of trepidation. Does she acknowledge that a third of the world’s fertilisers pass through the strait of Hormuz, and that the increase in the price of fertiliser is bound to have an impact on British agriculture and therefore on prices in the shops? What will she do to relieve some of that—in some cases existential—pressure on farms in the United Kingdom?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. I urge him and businesses and farmers in his constituency to look at the list of products and feed into the consultation over the next week or so. We are keen to bring the tariff reductions into effect to reduce prices in shops for all our constituents, but we want to do so in a way that is respectful of British farming. That is why we have chosen the tariff lines that we have. As he recognises, we are doing more to support farmers with the reduction in duty on red diesel.
The best way, though, that we can help all our constituents, the farming sector and others is to bring the conflict to an end and reopen the strait of Hormuz. That is why the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are working intensively with international partners to do just that, while at the same time we are working to diversify our supply of oil and gas so that fertiliser, to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly refers, is still available for our farmers.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor honestly for her statement. As she has mentioned, and as many Members of this House will be aware, I have been campaigning hard for the ceramics sector with a view to saving Denby Pottery. I thank the Ministers in the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade for their ongoing engagement through the many meetings we have had on this. I am delighted to hear about the £120 million support package. It is a clear indication that the Government are supporting and backing UK ceramics, and it will make Denby Pottery a more attractive prospect for any potential investors. Given the circumstances currently facing Denby Pottery, can the Chancellor commit to ensuring that the funding is available as soon as possible, in the hope that Denby can be saved?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for the work she does on behalf of all her constituents, particularly those impacted by what is happening at Denby. It was my privilege to come to Amber Valley with her last year to meet businesses across her constituency. We are backing UK ceramics. We want to find a future for Denby, and we will continue to work with my hon. Friend to achieve just that.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Last year, suckler beef farmers in my constituency were getting paid £7.30 per kilo for their finished product on the hook. Yesterday that was down to £5.75, and it is still falling. The price paid to dairy farmers for their milk is through the floor. Arable farmers are struggling after two catastrophically bad harvests. The red diesel duty cut is welcome, but it will not help farmers who are struggling with rocketing fertiliser prices or, indeed, those who are required to heat glasshouses. Opening the door ever wider to food imports risks undermining domestic food production. If food security genuinely is national security, surely our food producers and manufacturers should have access to the same support as other critical sectors. Will the Chancellor look again at adding food and drink to the Government’s industrial strategy, so that they can access the same support as other sectors?
Rachel Reeves
I know that, as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the right hon. Gentleman will play a key role in scrutinising what the Government are doing. The reduction of more than a third in the rate of duty on red diesel will have an immediate and important impact on the costs for farmers. I also appreciate the fact that his party, like the Government, did not support the conflict in the middle east and recognised that it was a mistake that would have an impact on businesses here at home. That is why we are doing everything within our power to reopen the strait of Hormuz, to ease these pressures on consumers and businesses, including farmers, but also in the meantime to diversify supply and open up new refining facilities in the UK, to help businesses, including farmers, during these challenging times.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Potteries welcome this statement. I have been working with local companies, the TUC, GMB and research organisations to develop proposals to support the ceramics industry to innovate, improve energy efficiency and decarbonise. I have previously called on the Government to release an industrial energy innovation fund for energy-intensive industries, with Government grants to explore process efficiency and new technologies, as well as vouchers to access shared pilot facilities. Could the Chancellor clarify whether part of the £120 million of funding announced today could be used by ceramics companies to access and invest in innovations such as AI-enabled process optimisation and energy technologies, to help reduce energy bills?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend and all the MPs involved in helping to put together this scheme of support for ceramics. Like her, I welcome the work of the TUC and GMB in this. Innovation and ensuring that the industry is sustainable and competitive for the future is absolutely essential. This is not just a sticking-plaster policy; it is about setting up the industry for the future, including investment in innovation and R&D and also the diversification of energy supplies.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The UK is losing 1,000 oil and gas jobs a month. The Chancellor is aware of that, and we have made it very clear to her that we are keen to move to the oil and gas price mechanism as soon as possible—we urge her to do that. On the foreign branch profits announcement today, have the Government modelled the job losses that may occur as a result of this change in the oil and gas taxation regime? Can she tell the House how many jobs might be lost as a result?
Rachel Reeves
As I have said in previous answers, I recognise the role of oil and gas in the UK and its importance to the UK for many years to come, which is why we have changed the rules around tiebacks and put in place a permanent mechanism for taxing windfall profits. But the hon. Lady has to answer the question: are she and her party in favour of the foreign branch profits exemption or not? If not, they cannot back the support we are giving today to help people with the cost of living and the support we are giving for ceramics. This exemption means that we are moving in line with how other countries treat foreign profits. At the moment, we have the absurd situation where losses overseas can mean that businesses avoid paying their fair share of corporation tax in the UK. This moves us in line with what other countries do. It is closing a tax loophole, and the hon. Lady and the Conservatives should welcome that.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
What a day to be a Stokie! As the Chancellor knows, my mum proudly worked in the pot banks of Tunstall and Burslem, and 10 weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister in this place what support the Government could offer our ceramic sector. The good news is that my mum is watching again right now at home, and she is clearly happy, because I have had a three-word text from her: “Nice one, duck.” How will we make sure the £120 million support package benefits ceramics companies of every size—from our Moorcrofts to our Moorlands, from our Steelites to our Churchills—so that we protect jobs, skills and the future of our economy?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I say to Mrs Williams and all those who work in the ceramics sector: I am proud to be the Chancellor who is backing British industry and British jobs.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Back in March, the Chancellor announced the £50 million crisis and resilience fund to help families with the price of heating oil, which is a big issue in rural constituencies such as mine. Does she have any plans to extend or repeat that scheme come the autumn, given that we are likely to have a similar crisis with the strait of Hormuz still shut? To what extent will the Russian oil that will come via a third country under commodity code 2710 form part of the fuel mix?
Rachel Reeves
Yesterday, we introduced the toughest set of sanctions on Russia that this country has ever had, but like the previous Government, we are phasing those in so that they do not have a disproportionate impact on industry here in the UK. That is what the previous Government did, and that is what we are doing as well.
The hon. Gentleman mentions support for people with the cost of heating oil. We were pleased to be able to introduce targeted support in areas that are particularly dependent on heating oil. We are doing a piece of work at the moment to see how much money has been used by local authorities—some have been more proactive than others in ensuring that local residents get support—and once we have completed that, we will look at whether and what further support is needed.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and the action that those of us in ceramic communities have been calling for, and I thank the Chancellor for announcing it. This is a good day for all of us in north Staffordshire. As it happens, staff from a ceramics business based in Newcastle-under-Lyme are sitting in the Gallery watching this statement; I welcome them. Can the Chancellor assure us of two things: first, that the eligibility for the support in this scheme will be as wide as possible, and secondly, that it will be as easy as possible to apply for?
Rachel Reeves
I am pleased to know that staff from a business in the ceramics sector in Newcastle-under-Lyme are here today, and I say to them directly: this Government have got your back and want to work with you and the trade unions that represent people in the sector to ensure that the ceramics industry plays an important part in British life—particularly in the pottery communities —for many years to come. Of course, we will set out the details of the scheme, but like my hon. Friends who represent these communities in Stoke, Newcastle and Amber Valley, this Government are very keen to crack on with the scheme and make sure that businesses can get the support they deserve.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Will the Chancellor expand on her discussions with the supermarkets and their role in keeping prices down? When the supermarkets make special offers or reduce prices, there is always a concern that rather than absorbing the costs themselves, they pass them on directly to farmers and their suppliers, who are not in a position to absorb them because of their fixed production costs.
Rachel Reeves
The right hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. Today I have set out a number of measures that will directly help the supermarkets to reduce their costs, and it is really important that those cost reductions are passed on directly to consumers. Reducing the cost of running an HGV will have a direct impact on our supermarkets, and reducing tariffs will have a direct impact on costs for our supermarkets. The trade deal that we are looking to do with the EU to reduce the costs of importing exporting food from the EU will also have a direct impact on costs for supermarkets. I say to the supermarkets: those cost reductions must be passed on directly to consumers, who are struggling with the cost of living, given the conflict in the middle east.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement, and particularly her VAT cut on theme park tickets. I invite her and all hon. Members to join me on my annual trip to Alton Towers this summer. Erewash has many great summer events for families to enjoy, such as Long Eaton carnival, the classic car show and the Glow festival in Ilkeston, but entertaining kids during the summer months can be daunting and expensive for parents. Can the Chancellor please elaborate on how the measures that she is announcing today will support Erewash families and boost great community events?
Rachel Reeves
My only worry with this package is that it will mean children badgering their parents even more for days out over the summer—I slightly worry about what I have unleashed in my own household. I am pleased to announce today that trips to Alton Towers and other activities, whether it be soft play, funfairs, zoos or museums—if many kids want to go to them; not mine probably, sadly—will be cheaper this summer because of the action that this Government are taking.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The Chancellor’s approach to the cost of living crisis is to find small ways to subsidise people’s costs, but is not the best solution to build a strong, abundant economy by doing the hard yards of supply side reform? In that economy, there would be better jobs and higher wages, people would be richer and the state would have less bearing on their lives, yet under the Chancellor, the benefits bill is ballooning, unemployment is rising, particularly among the young, and taxes are at their highest ever level. In the spirit of giving people some relief today, will the Chancellor confirm—assuming that she intends to stay in office for the rest of this Parliament—that she will not be increasing taxes on working people at all for the rest of this Parliament?
Rachel Reeves
I will take absolutely no lessons from the man who was part of a party that took our economy to its knees—inflation at 11%, working people worse off at the end of the last Parliament than they were at the beginning, and the worst Parliament ever for living standards—or from a party that has opposed all our reforms to make it easier to get things built in Britain, to increase the wages of working people with the national living wage and the national minimum wage, and to increase the rights of working people, including through statutory sick pay from day one and by ending abusive zero-hours contracts. If we want a lesson on economics, I certainly will not be taking it from the Reform party.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Chancellor’s announcement of a £120 million support package for ceramics will of course be welcomed in Stoke-on-Trent, but also in Rugeley in my constituency, which is home to many workers at the Armitage Shanks factory in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), who is a staunch advocate for them. Does the Chancellor agree that it is only this Labour Government who are putting in the investment that firms such as Armitage Shanks need? Does she also agree that iconic British brands like this should play a central role in new homes, to boost them even further?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am pleased that people in Rugeley and people working for Armitage Shanks will also benefit from this investment. The £120 million to support our ceramics sector is a clear indication of this Government’s intention to back British jobs and British industry.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Although I welcome some of the measures announced today, the reality is that instability in the middle east is having a direct impact on the UK economy and on the price paid by British households. Can the Chancellor therefore outline what steps her Department is taking to work across Government to ensure a stable region, including by boosting our defence spending? Will she finally commit to spending 3% of GDP in this Parliament and to working collaboratively towards reopening the strait of Hormuz?
Rachel Reeves
I do think it is a little rich for Conservative Members to talk about the instability from the middle east conflict—a conflict that they wanted Britain to join in from day one, but which our Prime Minister made the decision to keep Britain out of, because that war was a mistake and it is having an impact on British businesses and British families. I am proud to be the Chancellor who has overseen the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We are spending £270 billion during this Parliament, taking spending to 2.6% by April next year. The Conservatives said they would get to 2.5% by the end of this Parliament. They had no paid-for plans to do so; we are achieving it three years early.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
May I congratulate the Chancellor on the very welcome announcement that she has made? For people in Bradford West, the Great British summer savings scheme will go down an absolute treat. Does she agree that it will also benefit the hospitality industry, which has been struggling for years in my constituency and across the country?
Rachel Reeves
We all listened to my hon. Friend’s response to the King’s Speech last week, when we heard about the great restaurants in Bradford. I am pleased to say that VAT on children’s meals in those restaurants will fall from 20% to 5%, so all hon. Members who are looking forward to a curry in Bradford can enjoy one at Mumtaz, Aagrah and all the other great restaurants in her city.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I would like to start with the positive. I know that care workers in my constituency of North Herefordshire will really welcome the increase in mileage rates, and I welcome the measures that the Chancellor has announced that seem to be starting to tackle profit shifting, which is a key problem related to tax avoidance.
Does the Chancellor not recognise, however, that struggling families need help year round, not just short-term sticking plasters in the summer holidays? The Green party is calling for free bus travel for everybody under 22, year round. We are calling for free school meals for all children, to help all families year round. The cost of living crisis requires year-round action. This could be funded easily by taxing wealth fairly. Will she take that year-round bold action to tackle the cost of living crisis properly?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Lady for that question and for her welcome of the changes to mileage rates and the measures on profit shifting. Obviously not all parties in the House welcome them, so I appreciate the fact that hers does, but we are helping working people. The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is the biggest upgrade in the rights of renters in a generation; the Employment Rights Act 2025 is the biggest upgrade in the rights of working people for a generation. We have taken the national living wage and the national minimum wage to their highest ever levels. For working families, the 30 hours of childcare, free breakfast clubs, the extension of free school meals and getting rid of the two-child limit are all putting money in the pockets of working people. The measures that I have set out in my statement today on bus fares, fuel duties, VAT and hospitality, and more, will give further help, both in Herefordshire and around the country.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The announcement today of the £120 million fund to support the UK ceramics industry will be so welcome in my part of Staffordshire. Armitage Shanks is often not spoken of in the same breath as ceramics—partly because of the excellent advocacy of the Stokies and my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth)—but ceramics goes much further than flatware. The sanitary ware that comes out of Armitage Shanks is world class, but it is much, much more than that. It is the identity of that village, and it is an iconic British brand. The Chancellor’s support for Armitage Shanks and the rest of the ceramics industry will go down so well, not just with those workers and the GMB workers who are part of that factory, but with my community, so may I thank the Chancellor for her intervention?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is right that ceramics have a life in many parts of our economy, not just in great heritage businesses like Denby, which produces plates and other ceramics, but in sectors like defence and aerospace, where ceramics are crucial. That is why I am pleased to back them further with the £120 million package announced today.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The conflict in the middle east is not the Chancellor’s fault, but she has chosen this time to make it more expensive for my constituents to take a car from Fishbourne on the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth. Will she do the right thing and scrap the emissions trading scheme levy that she intends to introduce in July this year? It should not only be Scottish islands that are exempt.
Rachel Reeves
The measures that I have announced today will help people on the Isle of Wight. We have frozen fuel duty for the third time—in comparison, the plans that we inherited from the previous Government would have seen fuel duty go up—we are helping farmers with the cost of red diesel, we are helping the rail freight sector and we are supporting HGV drivers. Many people go to the Isle of Wight on their summer holidays and enjoy wonderful days out, and the cost of that will also be reduced, helping that sector in the Isle of Wight this summer.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chancellor for her important statement, not least because the previous Government failed to act on HMRC mileage rates for the 14 years that they were in power, watching as motoring costs went up year after year but doing absolutely nothing for the self-employed and frontline workers, like home care workers. It shows the power of a union like Unison, and it shows that we have a Chancellor who is willing to take the action needed to support working people. Ahead of the Fuller review, will the backdating of these measures support both the self-employed and employed workers alike?
Rachel Reeves
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who raised this issue in Treasury questions just a few weeks ago. I committed then to looking at this ahead of the next Budget, but given the ongoing conflict in the middle east, I thought it was right to bring those changes forward and increase the mileage rate for the first time since 2011. I assure him, home care workers, plumbers and all those who use their car for work that we will increase the mileage rate by 10p, backdated to April 2026, for employed and self-employed workers alike.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd. People are very aware that President Trump’s war with Iran is worsening the cost of living, but there are long-term measures within the gift of the Government that could improve heating costs for households. In north Wales and Merseyside, we pay the equivalent of £255 a year on standing charges, compared with £160 in London. When will the Chancellor address the structural inequality in heating costs?
Rachel Reeves
In the Budget last year, I reduced energy bills by £150, and just a few weeks ago, I put in additional money to help people with the cost of heating oil. The issue around standing charges and those allocations is for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but I will pass on the right hon. Lady’s concerns to the relevant Ministers.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement, which is welcome for those of us who are serious about buying British, building British and backing British. Will she say a little more about how she believes the measures will help the British brickmaking sector, a subject that I know Madam Deputy Speaker will also be interested to hear about?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for always standing up for the people of Stafford, whether by supporting bringing a market back to the town or supporting the brickmaking sector. This Government are investing £120 billion more in capital spending during this Parliament, compared with the plans that I inherited from the previous Government. I am determined that that money is spent here in Britain—whether on defence, energy, transport or building schools and hospitals—creating good jobs, paying decent wages, supporting British industry and supporting British workers.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Food inflation is forecast by the Food and Drink Federation to reach at least 9% by the end of this year. Energy costs are driving up food inflation, as are a lot of the other anti-business policies put forward by this Government, including not incorporating food manufacturing in the industrial strategy. When will the Chancellor realise that announcing things like capping supermarket food prices is just like flower arranging while the roots of the flower are dying?
Rachel Reeves
The hon. Lady says that we should extend the industrial strategy, but the previous Government did not even have an industrial strategy. I would say that a £700 million tariff reduction is not exactly fiddling at the margins; supermarkets should pass on those cost savings directly to consumers to help all our constituents with the cost of living.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I congratulate the Chancellor on her summer package of savings for families—it will give relief to those families who have booked domestic holidays, and a welcome boost to our domestic leisure and entertainment industries—but will she say a little bit more about how we intend to pass on the savings made by her tariff cuts through supermarkets? Too often, they have taken a cut and a slice off the reduced cost to them, so how do we ensure that all the savings get passed on to our constituents?
Rachel Reeves
I remember that, when I was young, I used to enjoy visits to Chislehurst Caves and Eltham Palace, and I hope they will be able to benefit from the changes I have announced today. It is important that we ensure that supermarkets pass on these cost reductions to their customers. We are also making changes to HGV duty, which will reduce costs for supermarkets. It is important that Supermarkets recognise the pressure that their customers are under at the moment. We have provided additional powers to the Competition and Markets Authority to ensure that no business, whatever its size or nature, takes advantage of the conflict in the middle east to hike prices for their customers.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Youth unemployment is now at 5%. On current form, it will rise to 5.8% by next year, which will mean a very large number of young people without work. What actions can the Chancellor take to ensure that young people get access to jobs and careers, and do not have the deeply depressing experience of being unemployed when they leave school, college or university? A disproportionate number of young people rent in the private rental sector, so will she also do something about bringing in much needed rent regulation in the private rental sector?
Rachel Reeves
We have already increased the number of apprenticeships, and changes to the growth and skills levy mean that young people do not always have to have maths and English at grades A to C to get on to an apprenticeship programme. We have also introduced shorter apprenticeships to help young people to get the skills they need. On private rent, the right hon. Gentleman might have seen the changes that we made through the Renters’ Rights Act 2026, which gives renters the greatest rights they have had in a generation, including the right to challenge a rent increase and to have only one rent increase a year. If someone challenges their rent increase and takes their case to a tribunal, they will not have the rent increase during the course of the tribunal, helping to limit rent rises for hard-working families.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chancellor for this wonderful set of measures. I will go one further than my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), who is no longer in his place, and invite her across the bridge to some of the greatest attractions in the UK, ranging from the London Eye to the Southbank Centre, the London Aquarium and even the Paddington Bear Experience, which will all benefit from this wonderful VAT cut. We have been raising this issue for many months, so it is good to see action.
This morning, I visited John Ruskin primary school in Camberwell in my constituency. We might think that the impact of what is happening is not affecting young children, but it is. The children there were so articulate, raising questions on oil and gas prices and prices in the supermarket, so I thank the Chancellor for addressing the issues. How will the CMA monitor supermarkets? It is a non-ministerial organisation, but will it be providing regular updates to the Treasury, so that we can ensure that price cuts are being passed on to hard-working families?
Rachel Reeves
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the London Eye will be included. Apparently it is called an “observation attraction”—the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and I made sure that such attractions are part of the package of measures. I totally agree with what she says about young children of primary school age having a deep understanding of the cost of living pressures faced by their families and carers at the moment. That is why it is so important that today’s measures particularly address the cost of the summer holidays for parents. I know that parents, whether in Vauxhall or in my own constituency of Leeds West and Pudsey, are not always as excited about the summer holidays as their children are because they are worried about the costs. I hope that the measures that I have announced today on the cost of children’s meals in restaurants and cafés, and to reduce the cost of days out, will go some way towards helping families to have a better summer.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement, but I ask her to look further at introducing a package of emergency measures to keep down energy bills in a number of ways, including through an essential energy guarantee for all households, a nationwide social tariff and extending the windfall tax on the energy sector’s excessive profits.
Rachel Reeves
When I became Chancellor, I extended the energy profits levy on gas and oil to 78%. We will be able to bring in money as a result of that. We have also increased the electricity generator levy by 10 percentage points to help to decouple gas and electricity prices. Because of the measures I took in my Budget last year, I was able to take £150 off people’s energy bills. I recognise the impact of the cost of living on families, pensioners and businesses, which is why I have introduced a further range of measures today, particularly targeting and helping families, energy-intensive industries, and those who drive a lot for work.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement and welcome the measures she has announced, which will have a huge impact and support many of my constituents and businesses in Battersea. She is very welcome to visit Battersea; we have wonderful hospitality there.
As we live in an increasingly unpredictable global landscape, it is vital that we work with some of our closest allies. That is why I welcome the European partnership Bill announced in the King’s Speech last week. Will the Chancellor continue to explore ways to strengthen our economic relationship with the EU as a means of promoting stability and security, particularly in the light of the current financial pressures as a result of the Iran war?
Rachel Reeves
The measures I have set out in my statement will absolutely help the hospitality and entertainment sectors in Battersea, whether zoos, cinemas or restaurants. My hon. Friend is right to point to the economic benefits—reducing inflation, and boosting jobs and growth—of a closer relationship with our nearest neighbours and trading partners in the EU. That is why we are currently negotiating an ambitious agreement to reduce the costs of bringing in agricultural, food and farming products from the EU, and increasing markets for British farmers in the EU. That is alongside a youth mobility scheme, Erasmus, and energy trading and electricity trading across the European Union.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I welcome the measures that the Chancellor has set out, particularly those that will help small businesses such as Noted Eel & Pie House in Leyton, Homies On Donkeys in the ’Stone, Bare Brew and City Place in Wanstead, and Fresh as a Daisy in South Woodford. I look forward to seeing their children’s menus, so that families can benefit from the measures she has set out. What more is she doing to support hard-pressed families in Leyton and Wanstead, particularly those who rent in the current cost of living crisis?
Rachel Reeves
I very much hope that families and businesses in Leyton and Wanstead can benefit from the changes that I have set out today. I know that the cost of renting is very high, especially in London, and the Renters’ Rights Act should give greater certainty and stability to renters and limit rent increases. In addition, families in Leyton and Wanstead will benefit from the offer of 30 hours of free childcare, the abolition of the two-child limit on universal credit and the roll-out of free breakfast clubs to primary schools. From September, straight after the summer holidays, all children whose parents or carers are on universal credit will benefit from free school meals.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
I am proud that this Government are backing British industry, from ceramics to British steel, in today’s announcement. Will my right hon. Friend look at possible measures to support the UK wood and timber sector? It is facing challenges such as price volatility, rising costs, supply chain pressures and missed targets for productive tree planting.
Rachel Reeves
The measures announced today will help ceramics and the chemicals sector, but other schemes, such as the supercharger scheme and the British industrial competitiveness scheme, will benefit other sectors across the economy. I am sure that the relevant Minister would be happy to meet my hon. Friend specifically to discuss wood and timber issues.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I declare an interest, as someone who worked for Unison immediately before coming to this place; its contribution to my campaign is included in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I worked as a trade union official for more than 20 years, representing public sector workers. One issue that came up in pay negotiations year after year was mileage rates, particularly for frontline social care workers. As the cost of living and fuel prices rose, frozen mileage rates effectively imposed a stealth cut on workers who were already delivering vital public services. On behalf of those workers and the thousands of frontline workers across Scotland, may I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s decision and announcement today? Will she confirm that she has spoken with her counterparts in the new Scottish Government to ensure that the levers of power over which they have control are similarly focused on cutting the cost of living for my constituents?
Rachel Reeves
The increase in mileage rates for employed and self-employed workers will have a material effect on those who need to use their car for work every day; it is, of course, the first increase since 2011. Alongside the Employment Rights Act, this is giving greater rights, greater certainty and greater incomes to ordinary working people. I pay tribute to the trade union Unison for its lobbying and work on this issue over many, many years.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Families in Bracknell Forest often tell me that the schools holidays can be bittersweet; the opportunity to make treasured memories and spend time with their children must be balanced against having to juggle childcare and work, as well as the cost of living pressures that come from keeping their children entertained. The measures VAT cuts for summer attractions that the Chancellor has announced today will therefore make a real difference. May I ask her to encourage people across the country to make use of the fantastic leisure facilities in Bracknell Forest, including the Look Out Discovery Centre, South Hill Park and Play World soft play, as they take advantage of this new scheme?
Rachel Reeves
I hope that families in Bracknell, whether they are enjoying a day out in Bracknell Forest or going on a summer holiday to one of the great seaside towns across our United Kingdom, will benefit from these changes. They will make lunch or dinner out as a family, and entertainment, a little bit cheaper. If parents or carers are on universal credit, when their kids go back to school in September—whether they are in nursery, primary, secondary or further education—they will benefit from free school meals.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, especially the measures to support farmers and hauliers. Banbury has a thriving logistics sector, with brilliant businesses like TWE Haulage; I visited that company last month, and I know it will really welcome the measures that she has announced. Will she and her colleagues continue to keep under review the particular pressures on the logistics sector and be open to any further measures that may be needed?
Rachel Reeves
The best way to reduce cost pressures on families and businesses is to get the strait of Hormuz reopened and those vessels carrying oil and gas flowing again, but of course in the meantime I will keep under review the support necessary to support businesses and families in Banbury and across the country.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I welcome the tone of yesterday’s announcement at the petrol pump and today’s announcement in the House. The Government are fighting for working people every day. Is ice skating included in the measures? Alexandra Palace has the most fantastic ice skating rink. I hope that ice skating is included, so that children visiting London, as well as London children, can enjoy slightly cheaper ice skating this summer, with a lovely meal to boot.
Rachel Reeves
I will have to check about ice skating. I like to pride myself on being on top of my brief, but I do not know whether ice skating is included. I did, however, know about the London Eye.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Following a successful sale to the LB Group, chemicals firm Tioxide is planning to reopen its Greatham plant in Hartlepool. The £350 million critical chemicals resilience fund is a real boost, at exactly the right time, for that Hartlepool employer. Can the Chancellor say a little more about how the fund will promote jobs and growth in Hartlepool?
Rachel Reeves
Businesses in Hartlepool and across Teesside will be among the biggest beneficiaries of these changes around chemicals. The Minister for industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), is now in his place, and I pay tribute to him again for his help in setting out this package of measures. The Department for Business and Trade will shortly set out the details of the chemicals scheme, but I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) that it includes help with capital and day-to-day costs, with the aim of making the sector more sustainable and less energy intensive in the future. That will make it increasingly competitive. We recognise the chemical sector’s important role in the UK, and we are determined to ensure a bright future for it.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I, too, thank the Chancellor for her statement, and in particular the announcement of the £350 million chemicals resilience fund. As a consequence of the Iran war, energy price rises of 16% and food price rises of up to 7% are predicted by the Bank of England. I very much welcome the Chancellor’s addressing the cost of living crisis, and the steps to help families this summer, including with bus fares for children; that will be welcomed in Middlesbrough and Thornaby East. We will no doubt monitor and evaluate the dividends of that travel offer. Will the Chancellor consider whether the long-term free travel initiatives elsewhere in Europe have translated positively into economic engagement and growth, and whether they could be replicated here? Given the cries from the retail sector this week, can she advise on what a voluntary pricing arrangement on core items in a basket of supermarket goods, as introduced in France in 2023, might do for living standards?
Rachel Reeves
Businesses in the chemicals sector in Middlesbrough will benefit from these changes. In today’s package, a lot of the focus was on food costs, be it the cost of kids’ meals in restaurants and cafés or the reduction in tariffs, and on support for transport, whether people are travelling by car or by bus. We recognise that increases in essential costs are the ones that families fear most. We will of course monitor the impact of these measures. We expect the range of measures that I have set out today to have a cost to the Exchequer, and that is why I have also set out the foreign branch exemption changes, to ensure that all businesses pay their fair share of tax.
On supermarkets, which my hon. Friend mentioned, the Co-op announced last November, on the back of my Budget, that it was cutting the cost of 1,000 products because of the beneficial impact of the changes to business rates. Last week, the Co-op froze the price of more than 40 essential products, and it has committed to working to keep them down. I welcome those measures by the Co-op. I hope that other supermarkets heed the calls of their customers to keep prices down; and I hope that they take advantage of what I have set out today to reduce their costs, and pass those savings directly on to consumers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I will try to get all Members in, but I encourage them to ask very short questions. There are two more statements and the main business to come this afternoon, and we are getting a little tight on time.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I welcome this announcement and the Chancellor’s statement. It means that, thanks to this Labour Government, it will be cheaper for families across my community to go to theme parks, farms and soft plays this summer. I will see them there, because my children have a long list of places they want to visit. On days out, our families get to choose between eating out or taking a good old picnic. Can the Chancellor bring to life the decision that she has made today? How will it ensure that families have full tummies, as well as lots of fun and excitement, this summer?
Rachel Reeves
We are helping to keep prices down in the supermarkets, and to reduce the cost of lunch at a café or restaurant when families have a day out. Having met my hon. Friend’s kids out on the campaign trail in Aldershot, I think that a couple of days out not delivering leaflets would be very much in order.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I congratulate the Chancellor on this ambitious and comprehensive package of measures, supporting families across Bolton West. As a long-standing proponent of a fairer taxation system, I thank her for the measures she has put forward to close the tax loopholes that have been used by oil and gas firms to structure their affairs and avoid paying hundreds of millions of pounds into the Exchequer. That money will finance this package of proposals to support families. She mentioned the Competition and Markets Authority. Can she say a little more about what engagement she envisages having over the coming months to make sure that we do not see profiteering, going forwards?
Rachel Reeves
Closing tax loopholes has been a feature of the first two Budgets I have delivered as Chancellor—for example, the loophole whereby private schools did not pay VAT or business rates. I increased the energy profits levy and the tax on private jets, and there has been a range of other measures to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share of tax. The Competition and Markets Authority is already, at my behest, carrying out a review of heating oil to make sure that customers using heating oil are treated fairly. We are introducing the fuel finder to ensure that customers can always get the best deal when filling up their car with petrol.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the package of support she has announced today. She knows at first hand that hospitality is what my little town does best. My hospitality industry, fairground and constituents will be very happy today. Can she clarify, as I am not sure, whether the 15% VAT cut applies to all restaurants, café, pubs, bars and hotels serving children’s meals? Will she please keep under review the possibility of extending this welcome VAT cut to the hospitality industry as a whole?
Rachel Reeves
I have happy memories of having fish and chips with my hon. Friend in her constituency several years ago. I can confirm that the VAT for children’s meals, be they in a pub, hotel, restaurant or café, will be cut from 20% to 5% between 25 June and 1 September. We will monitor the impact of that on tax revenues, and the number of people going out for dinner. We envisage that this measure will have a cost to the taxpayer, which is why we are funding it by ending the tax loophole whereby some companies were using losses overseas to offset their corporation tax here in Britain.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Families across my constituency will be relieved to hear the measures set out by my right hon. Friend, whether that is the freezing of fuel duty, free bus travel for young people this summer or the suspension of tariffs on essential food items. All those actions will be greatly welcomed by families worried about the impact of the Iran war on household finances. Can the Chancellor set out how much she envisages these measures combined will save families in the north-east? Will she keep measures, including on energy bills, under review, ahead of the winter?
Rachel Reeves
People in more rural areas, such as some of my hon. Friend’s constituents, will particularly benefit from the freeze in fuel duty and the free bus fares for kids. We think that the changes in fuel duty have already saved people around £100 a year, and we expect the same sort of benefit thereafter. Drivers of heavy goods vehicles will benefit by up to £912 through those changes. The bus fare changes are unlimited free bus travel for five to 15-year-olds, and we can add in the savings on days out and meals out. All these things are unlimited; people can go on a bus as many times as they like, and they can take their kids out for a meal and benefit from that reduction in VAT as much as they like. We want people to have an enjoyable summer, worrying less about the costs and thinking more about making happy memories.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The plans outlined today by the Chancellor will be a massive boost for families in my constituency, but also for the hospitality and tourism sector. I am sure she will agree that Blackpool has some of the best attractions in the world, including the best theme park in the United Kingdom, Blackpool Pleasure Beach, which is today launching its record-breaking £8.7 million new ride, Aviktas. Since the Chancellor made her statement, my phone has not stopped ringing; businesses, theme parks and organisations from across the town are welcoming this news. On their behalf, as well as for my own part, may I invite the Chancellor to Blackpool this summer to see at first hand the positive difference that her policies will make in our town, and the potential that we have?
Rachel Reeves
I am really excited about what is happening in Blackpool in the lead up to the 100th anniversary of the Blackpool illuminations in three years’ time. I very much look forward to my next trip to Blackpool. I do not eat only fish and chips, but I remember a very happy meal of fish and chips in my hon. Friend’s constituency during his by-election campaign.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Parents, grandparents and carers will know that keeping children busy during the summer can feel like an expensive endurance event. Will the Chancellor assess the economic and social value of the great British summer package of savings, particularly its impact on opening up access to museums, cinemas, libraries, sports facilities, theatres, theme parks and attractions? It will build children’s cultural capital and life experiences, while also supporting local economies in Wolverhampton and Willenhall, and across the country.
Rachel Reeves
Spoken like a proper former teacher! Expanding their cultural capital is what my children want to do every weekend. Whether it is expanding cultural capital, or having fun at a theme park in Blackpool or at Alton Towers, I want children and families to be able to enjoy this summer. As a former teacher, my hon. Friend will know that although the summer holidays are a welcome relief for teachers and children, it can often be a time of worry for parents. I hope that today’s changes will make the summer holidays a bit easier for all families.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
People across the Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency work hard, and being able to enjoy time together as a family this summer is important for everyone. I know that the Chancellor’s announcements on summer savings for families—including on popular attractions—and on free bus travel for children will be warmly welcomed at home. Could she please set out how the decisions that she has taken to stabilise the economy have made it possible for the Government to fund this?
Rachel Reeves
It is important that all the policies that we have set out are fully costed and fully funded, and the change that we have made to the foreign branch exemption will fund today’s package of measures. The reduction in inflation due to the measures I set out in my Budget last year, and the strong growth that we have seen—the fastest in the G7 in the first quarter of this year—make the package affordable and sustainable. That is why we are able to set out this support today.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome the Chancellor’s intervention at a time when the cost of living is increasingly putting pressure on working families in Darlington. This is a proper Labour intervention from a proper Labour Chancellor, and representation matters in this House. As I look around the Chamber, I can see Stoke and the ceramics industry supported. I can see Redcar, Middlesbrough and Stockton represented, and their industries supported. Not only has this Labour Chancellor intervened to make sure that families in my constituency can have a much better summer, but their jobs will be secure for much longer, so I thank her.
Rachel Reeves
This package was not just designed by me; it was designed by hon. and right hon. Members of this House who have made representations to me about the cost of living, but also about the specific business needs and business challenges in their constituencies. Although I am proud to be the Chancellor who has delivered today’s package, I pay tribute to all Members who have contributed to it.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I congratulate the Chancellor on her skilful management of our economy in what are extremely difficult international circumstances. Growth is up, inflation is down and borrowing is down. I particularly welcome the great British summer savings scheme, which will make a huge difference to families and business in my constituency, but families will continue to worry about their day-to-day bills. Can she reassure my constituents that the fuel duty freeze, and the reduction in tariffs on foodstuffs, will be felt directly in their pockets?
Rachel Reeves
Absolutely. The freeze in fuel duty will continue until the end of this year and we will keep it under review, depending on what happens in the middle east. It is very important that the tariff reductions and the HGV duty changes are passed on to customers. I am slightly worried that my statement has unleashed a competition between hon. Members about whose constituency has the best summer attractions, whether it is soft play, theme parks, zoos or ice skating. I am being lobbied by my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) about lemon tops in her constituency. I look forward to this continuing ahead of the introduction of VAT reductions on 25 June.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement from my right hon. Friend, particularly the suspension of import tariffs on more than 100 food and drink staples. I know that my constituents across Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton have been struggling with the cost of a weekly shop. Although we all enjoy a treat, including me, it was disappointing to see the headlines leading with biscuits and chocolate, given that we have a public health crisis with obesity and diabetes. Could the Chancellor assure the House that the Government remain committed to the healthy food standard, which encourages supermarkets to promote healthy choices, and will she work with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to ensure that efforts to tackle poor diet and obesity remain a priority, alongside the cost of living?
Rachel Reeves
A whole range of products are included in the tariff reductions, including imports of tropical fruits, bananas, olive oil and much more, but I expect that hon. and right hon. Members would be forgiven for wanting to have a chocolate biscuit after a day of work in this place.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced today, which will help ease the cost of living pressures on families in my constituency, and on its very many businesses and attractions—and in time for the Scottish school summer holidays. She is always welcome for award-winning fish and chips in my constituency.
Earlier this year, the Government set out welcome plans to break the link between the wholesale price of gas and the cost of electricity. Can my right hon. Friend provide an update on those plans and tell us how that will help reduce bills over the long term?
Rachel Reeves
I am sure that my hon. Friend’s constituents in Edinburgh North and Leith will benefit from being able to enjoy attractions in the Scottish school holidays. People from the other nations and regions of the UK, or from further afield, will also be able to enjoy the attractions of Edinburgh this summer.
On the specific issue of delinking gas and electricity prices, this is both a short-term and long-term measure. In the short term, we have increased the electricity generator levy by 10 percentage points to bring in more money this year. We are renegotiating contracts to move electricity prices on to contracts for difference in order to have greater certainty about electricity prices, so that the gas price does not set the electricity price so frequently, giving greater stability of energy prices to businesses and families.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Inflation is down, wages are up, interest rates are down, and growth is up. These are the reasons why the Chancellor can make today’s announcements. Those on the Opposition Benches will not say it, but I will: thank you, Chancellor.
As the Chancellor said in her statement, the British industrial competitiveness scheme offers important support for economic growth, but at the moment it excludes the vital critical minerals sector, which, as she knows, is directly relevant to my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency. Will she meet me to discuss energy support measures for the critical minerals sector?
Rachel Reeves
As my hon. Friend knows, I am absolutely committed to the critical minerals sector. We have already introduced the Kernow growth fund for Cornwall, and we have instructed the National Wealth Fund to invest more in critical minerals, including the huge opportunities in tin and lithium in Cornwall. We need more diversified supply chains for critical minerals and rare earths, and Cornwall gives us a great opportunity to achieve exactly that. I look forward to continuing to work with my hon. Friend and the other Cornwall MPs to ensure that we bring good jobs, paying decent wages, to the region.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The news that bus travel will be free for children this summer is extremely welcome. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a golden opportunity for East Yorkshire Buses and Transdev to boost summer capacity, ensuring that children from deprived communities in Scarborough are not squeezed off the buses by tourists travelling to the coast for a great British summer?
Rachel Reeves
I would encourage bus companies to use this as an opportunity to increase the services they offer this summer as they cater for more young people on their buses. I am sure that many hon. and right hon. Members will have enjoyed days out at the aquarium in Scarborough and dinner at the Magpie in Whitby, which serves very good fish and chips.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will of course be aware that the best summer attraction is the Northwich piña colada festival, which is enjoyed by boys and girls of all ages.
I thank the Chancellor for her statement. The relief she is providing to the chemicals industry will be welcomed by sector businesses in Mid Cheshire. Their expertise and innovation contribute significantly to both local employment and national resilience. I have previously spoken about the rising input costs and regulatory challenges that these businesses face, and I look forward to hearing more about how she will consult with the industry on eligibility for the funds. Does she agree that the forthcoming summit with the EU presents an opportunity to bear down on regulation further by seeking alignment and mutual recognition on the UK and EU REACH—registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—regulations?
Rachel Reeves
I am slightly worried that someone will make a point of order about the age at which people are allowed to enjoy the Northwich piña colada festival.
Yes, we will be consulting on chemicals and ceramics to ensure that we give businesses the right support, but we do not want a long consultation to get in the way of actually getting the support to those businesses. My hon. Friend made an important point about our trading relationship with our nearest neighbours and trading partners. We are proud to be a Government who have done trade deals with the Republic of Korea, the United States, India and, yesterday, the Gulf countries. However, the biggest prize is a trade deal and improved trading relations with our nearest neighbours and trading partners in the EU, and I hope that we will make progress on that in the next few months.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement, but I am obliged to point out that, in fact, Peppa Pig World, on the edge of my constituency, is the finest attraction in the country.
Middle East
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement to update the House on the situation in Iran, the strait of Hormuz and across the wider middle east.
I would first like to use this opportunity to welcome the conclusion of negotiations on the UK-Gulf Co-operation Council free trade agreement yesterday. This is the first trade agreement that the GCC has reached with any G7 country. It is a major milestone for UK partnerships with the six countries of the GCC—Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. As well as the clear economic benefits for all sides, the agreement is a strong signal of our solidarity with our Gulf partners and our long-term commitment to working together for regional security and prosperity. Beyond the FTA, we are working closely with our Gulf partners, and the Foreign Secretary and I were delighted to welcome Foreign Ministers from the United Arab Emirates, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and the GCC secretary-general, in recent days to discuss the situation in the region.
I would also like to take this opportunity to address the shocking footage that many members will have seen yesterday of the treatment of those detained from the flotilla by Israeli Minister Mr Ben-Gvir. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we are appalled and have demanded an explanation from the Israeli Government. The Israeli chargé d’affaires was therefore summoned this morning to the Foreign Office. Our foremost responsibility is the safety and security of British nationals. Our consular staff are in contact with the families who have asked for consular support, and with a number of Members of this House. Our staff in the region are now working to help British nationals get home.
Let me also say that, while yesterday it was Europeans and others who were subjected to humiliating treatment, which has rightly caused international condemnation, we should be clear that Mr Ben-Gvir has been behaving outrageously towards Palestinians day in, day out ever since he became a Minister. That is a disgrace, and it is why the UK led an international group of our partners to impose sanctions on both Mr Ben-Gvir and Mr Smotrich in their personal capacities, as I announced from this Dispatch Box late last year.
Turning to the situation in Palestine, children in Gaza are living amid sewage, parasites and disease. The UN has reported that infestations are now affecting almost 1.5 million people. This suffering is man-made and preventable. As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, the continued humanitarian restrictions by Israeli authorities are indefensible and they must end. We support the 20-point plan and the hugely welcome release of hostages that it delivered, but the full promise of the 20-point plan has yet to be fully realised. For Gazans, conditions are still dire. The parties must do much more to end the suffering and allow families to rebuild. That also means that Hamas must agree to disarm and decommission their weapons, and the Israel Defence Forces must withdraw from Gaza.
In Brussels, at the ad hoc liaison committee ministerial meeting, which intended to get more aid into Gaza, I spoke with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mustafa and Dr Ali Shaath, the head of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza. I was clear on British support for both of them in their urgent work. We continue to work with partners to meet immediate humanitarian needs and advance long-term peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians through a two-state solution. That is why this Government took the step that we did to recognise the state of Palestine.
In the west bank, as the House will know, settler violence and settlement expansion continue to drive Palestinians from their homes, including over the recess period. The Netanyahu Government are imposing a stranglehold on the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian economy. Yesterday I made a virtual visit to a school in Hebron. My conversations with teachers and pupils there brought into sharp focus the daily challenges facing children, teachers and families across Palestine. Movement restrictions, violence and disruption are barriers to education that no child should have to face. We have introduced sanctions and taken measures in response to the Israeli Government’s actions. I have been clear that we are prepared to take further action and will not hesitate to do so.
Turning to Lebanon, we welcome the cessation of hostilities agreed by the Governments of Lebanon and Israel. We call on all parties to comply with it fully. We have a unique opportunity, through direct dialogue between Israel and Lebanon, to bring lasting peace to both countries, including the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon in line with UN Security Council resolution 1701. I condemn the strikes by Lebanese Hezbollah on communities in northern Israel, which must stop. I saw for myself in Lebanon the impact that UK aid is having in supporting those displaced and those experiencing the consequences of violence. I made a further announcement of £20.5 million during that visit, which makes us one of Lebanon’s largest humanitarian donors. Our Prime Minister has himself set out to President Aoun of Lebanon our support for his Government, and I remain in regular touch with my counterparts.
I turn now to Iran and the strait of Hormuz. On 17 April, the Prime Minister, alongside President Macron, convened 51 countries for an international summit on reopening the strait. We came together as an international community to support freedom of navigation and to protect global economic stability and energy security. But since then, the strait has remained closed and Iran has introduced new structures to exert control that deny vessels the right of transit passage—a breach of international law. The disruption that has caused to global energy security, supply chains, and economic and financial stability must end. As the Foreign Secretary said this week, we face a global food crisis. We cannot risk tens of millions of people going hungry because Iran has hijacked a vital international shipping lane. It is crucial that international law is respected and the strait reopened without the imposition of tolls or permissions by Iran, so that transit can return to pre-war levels.
To do that, we need a lasting and workable settlement to the conflict. The Foreign Secretary and I, along with the rest of the ministerial team, have been working tirelessly to help that happen. We are in close contact with partners from across the globe to support negotiations, including Gulf partners, key regional players such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Egypt, as well as G7 allies. We have been engaging closely with the US. President Trump’s recent remarks that serious negotiations are taking place, are welcome. We share in the President’s absolute conviction that Iran must not have a nuclear weapon.
We are engaging closely with Oman, given its longstanding role supporting shipping through the strait. We are also supporting the vital work of the International Maritime Organisation, and its plan to ensure the safety of seafarers and vessels. We want to see the ceasefire hold, talks continue and a negotiated solution reached for a durable end to this conflict, one that protects the future of the strait and the principles of the law of the sea. We are working urgently to secure the unconditional, unrestricted and immediate reopening of the strait of Hormuz; not a partial reopening, but a full reopening without restrictions or tolls.
On the military side, the multinational mission announced by the Prime Minister and President Macron is gathering momentum. On 12 May, we brought together 38 nations to announce their political support to an independent and strictly defensive mission, and we are now working with military planners from those nations to turn that commitment into reality. In consultation with relevant states and the maritime industry, the mission will support civilian shipping and provide reassurance to commercial shipping operators. We have been clear that operations will only commence in a permissive environment, and in full accordance with international law and national constitutions.
The UK is leading the way on this mission and the Defence Secretary has already announced the UK’s contribution. Together with our partners, the mission will complement ongoing diplomatic engagement and de-escalation efforts, which remain the primary focus, while demonstrating a tangible commitment to the security of international trade. The Government will do all we can to support regional stability in the middle east and an enduring end to the current crisis, including through further concerted international effort in the coming days and weeks. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The conflict and crisis in the middle east continues to be felt in Britain and overseas. The Government must use all their diplomatic leverage and economic might to pursue a path of peace and stability in the region that protects the interests of Britain, our allies and our partners.
In response to the Minister’s remarks about the situation in Israel, we expect full diplomatic and consular access to be made available to British nationals. The Minister knows that progressing the peace plan in Gaza requires productive engagement from the British Government, not just talk. The Government have no role in the board of peace, so what are the Government doing to bring to the table support for the reconstruction for civilians, the removal of Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure that we know about, and the removal of Hamas from power? Can the Minister tell the House when he or the Foreign Secretary last engaged with the leadership team of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories and the Civil-Military Coordination Centre on aid entering Gaza for those innocent civilians? Can he confirm to the House the quantum of aid that is going to Gaza through these routes? He himself has said that the situation is desperate and we all need to see more aid going through. He must recognise that having a functioning relationship with the Government of Israel is key to advancing those important humanitarian and peace priorities.
Will the Minister tell the House what action he is taking to support the disarmament of Hezbollah, the terrorist proxy of the Iranian regime? He touched on the situation between Israel and Lebanon. That can only be sustained with the right outcomes when the threats posed by Hezbollah are dealt with. What is his assessment of the situation between Israel and Lebanon?
On Iran, we all want the ceasefire to lead to the right outcome when it comes to ending the conflict and the regional issue we are all faced with. It is vital that the war ends in such a way that works for the British national interest, but also for the western interest and that of our security allies and friends in the middle east who are on the frontline day in, day out, including the UAE which has come under fire again in recent weeks and days. What involvement have the Government had in any discussions and negotiations? Does the Minister agree that the despotic, murderous Iranian regime must de-escalate and act in a constructive way going forward?
On the Conservative Benches, we do not have intelligence on Iran’s exact nuclear programme, its capabilities or what it is doing internally in its own country, but clearly whatever remains of the existing programme must be dismantled. The enriched uranium it currently has must be removed and lessons must be learnt from where Iran exploited the 2015 agreement. Can the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s position? Clarity from the Government on that totemic issue is really important. What is the Government’s position on Iran’s ballistic and military capability?
The Government have talked a great deal about their position on the strait of Hormuz, yet we have not seen any change in the situation, or, to this day, practical measures from the United Kingdom. The strait of Hormuz cannot be treated as a bargaining tool and no country or company should be forced to line the coffers of the despicable regime in Tehran. No country should have the power to shut down a global artery of international commerce and trade. Are the British Government actually putting any pressure at all on Iran to restore freedom of navigation? At the very least, surely, there should be new sanctions to tighten the screws on this appalling regime and a total ban on regime officials who might want to flee to the UK, as well as a concerted effort to go after the regime elites who might attempt to park their wealth in London? We know about their assets and I have raised these points previously with the Minister. Given the sickening recruitment call from the Iranian embassy in recent weeks, why have the Government only summoned the ambassador for a slap on the wrist? Surely the Home Office must now intervene on the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?
On the long overdue UK-Gulf Cooperation Council free trade agreement, which we welcome, the Minister will know that those negotiations had been under way for many, many years and that it is an important Brexit opportunity. That could be at risk with his ministerial colleagues and the Labour leadership candidates planning to take us back into the EU all over again.
Finally, the Conservatives stand firmly in support of British interests across the middle east, which must be safeguarded. We must use our important influence in the region to effectively protect Britain, but also our allies, from those who want to continue to cause harm to the United Kingdom and to our friends and allies in the middle east.
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for the constructive tone of her questions. Let me turn to the important question of consular access, which she raised at the outset. To be clear to the House, and to all right hon. and hon. Members who have constituents involved, we are seeking from the Israeli authorities both consular access to our nationals, as they would expect, and assurances about their good treatment. We understand that British nationals are expected to be deported back to the UK imminently. We are obviously following that up rapidly. If colleagues across the House have concerns, they are very welcome to raise them with me. We are, of course, as I said in the statement, in direct contact with those families who have approached the Foreign Office directly.
I can reassure the shadow Foreign Secretary that we are heavily engaged in the efforts she describes in relation to Gaza, both on reconstruction and on ensuring that adequate aid gets into Gaza. As I was clear in the statement, the amount of aid getting in remains inadequate and the restrictions remain contrary to the 20-point plan. We are pushing those points with Israeli authorities, as she would expect, and with all those with an interest in Gaza. That includes COGAT and CMCC, which she mentioned, and some of the new institutions formed under the Board of Peace—I saw High Representative Mladenov in Brussels and am in regular contact with him. It also includes the important discussions about the disarmament of Hamas. Similarly, we remain in regular discussions about the importance of demonstrating real progress in Lebanon on the disarmament of Lebanese Hezbollah. I discussed that with the Lebanese Foreign Minister just this week.
I am happy to say more about the sanctions that we have put in place already. I came to this House to announce some sanctions in October 2025. Those were precisely targeted on senior regime assets in the UK, which included significant restrictions on property ownership, which the right hon. Lady is aware of, up to a total value of £140 million. Given the serious nature of the topic, I will resist entering into discussion about Brexit. Whether or not the GCC FTA is long overdue, it was a negotiation started by Members now on the Opposition Benches, and it is a great pleasure for us to conclude it from the Government Benches.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I welcome the statement by the Minister, his reiteration of the Government’s commitment to international law, and that they are prepared to take further action—and will not hesitate to do so—when it comes to Palestine.
It has been almost two years since the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion on Israel and the occupied territories, calling on the Government to take action. Since then, settler violence has exploded; just this week, the UN released a report stating in no uncertain terms that the far-right Israeli Government are weaponising settler violence to carry out their stated intention of annexing the west bank.
In February, we were told that the Government wanted to respond to the advisory opinion with
“the rigour and seriousness that it deserves.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 524.]
In March, the Minister again told us that the Government would update the House on their reaction to the ICJ’s advisory opinion. My question is: when will we stop hesitating and take action to ensure that international law is respected?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her question, which, as she says, she has put to me before. First, it is important to emphasise that we continue to take steps to ensure that international law is adhered to, and that those principles underline our response both to events in Isael-Palestine and across the wider middle east. I know the House is impatient for a fuller answer in relation to the advisory opinion, even though most of the substantive elements of policy I have addressed from the Dispatch Box.
My right hon. Friend is a learned lawyer herself, so will know that there are some horizontal implications from the advisory opinion that go beyond simply the context in the middle east, which is one reason that we have been taking our time. I will endeavour to return to the House with the speed that she demands, which I understand.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I know that many colleagues, like me, are frustrated by the Government’s lack of action to secure progress of a two-state solution. The UK is rightly committed to the disarmament of Hamas and Hezbollah. Those terror groups cannot be allowed to continue destabilising the region, but it is not clear that concrete action is being taken to deliver that. Can the Minister tell me how the Government are co-ordinating international efforts to disarm and disband both groups?
Our influence over proscribed groups is less than over a state we call an ally. That is why Liberal Democrats have been so critical of the Minister’s failure to hold the Israeli Security Cabinet to account for its extremist actions. I was disgusted by the footage of the far-right Minister, Ben-Gvir, degrading detainees from the Global Samud Flotilla. This was after celebrating his birthday with a cake emblazoned with a noose, following the passage of a death penalty law targeting Palestinians. It was right that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office called in the Israeli chargé d'affaires to register our condemnation, but it is far from sufficient.
In the west bank, settler violence and expansion accelerates. At the start of June, tenders will be delivered for the construction in the E1 area, a move that could kill the chance of a contiguous Palestinian state. In Gaza, Israeli forces push forward their yellow line, inch by inch. The entry of aid continues to be impeded by restrictive measures, while the humanitarian catastrophe only worsens and journalists are still blocked from entering. In southern Lebanon, the Israeli Defence Force demolishes Lebanese houses and entire villages—an abhorrent and illegal operation.
Across those issues, the Government’s muted response and dysfunction can be summarised in a single example: the decision to cut the FCDO’s unit for the monitoring of international law breaches across Israel and Palestine. Can the Minister set out what steps the Government will take if the E1 project continues? Will the Minister ban all UK trade with illegal settlements, reverse cuts to the FCDO’s monitoring unit and press the Israeli Government to allow journalists access to Gaza so that they can collect what evidence may remain of war crimes committed there?
Mr Falconer
I want to be clear about British leadership on those questions. As I said in the statement, before all of the events that the hon. Member describes with Mr Ben-Gvir, I had already sanctioned him from the Dispatch Box. We did so in advance of most of our key friends and allies. As I was walking to the Chamber today, I saw that some of our European friends are now considering doing what we did in August of last year. We have taken action both in company and alone, given the significance of events in the region, and we will continue to do so.
Turning to the hon. Member’s important points about some of the Foreign Office structures, I am particularly sensitive to those questions, as a proud former member of the diplomatic service myself. It is important to set out that the world is changing very rapidly, and Foreign Office structures need to change too. Whether it is some of the reports today about the Iran unit, or reports in recent weeks about the international humanitarian law assessment cell, responsibility lies with Ministers to ensure that we are properly served on advice about both Iran and international humanitarian law. I still get that advice.
It is true that there need to be some changes in the structure of the Foreign Office. Since I was in the Foreign Office in 2015, the headcount in the UK—counting both Departments—has increased by 40% over a decade. That is something that we need to address. I spent a great deal of my career overseas, and that is where I would like to see the majority of the diplomatic if possible.
We need to make changes, but to be clear, no unit—not the Iran unit and not the IHL cell—is being targeted. It is my responsibility to ensure that I am properly advised on both of those questions, and I am. What has been referred to is an offer to all staff that they can take part redundancy or voluntary redundancy if they would like to. It was not specific to the Iran unit, which does incredibly important work. I was with it this morning, and I assure the House that the Foreign Secretary and I, and the rest of Government, continue to be excellently served by the officials of the Foreign Office.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
This week we have seen two Israeli Ministers, already sanctioned by this Government, act with impunity—Ben-Gvir assaulting and mocking humanitarian aid activists, and Smotrich saying the Palestinian Authority will “get a war”. Smotrich then ordered the ethnic cleansing, an apartheid act, of the village of Khan al-Ahmar, as part of the illegal development of the E1 corridor. Khan al-Ahmar is a village that many colleagues and I visited, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting).
As co-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, I ask the Minister, does he agree that our diplomacy and limited-sanctions approach is not working to arrest the ongoing genocide? Will he set out what steps he will take with Government colleagues to escalate pressure, through resourcing the enforcement of criminal law, including the application of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, updating the overseas business risk guidance, and ensuring regulatory bodies are advising their members in relation to the continued illegal trade in settlement goods and services?
Mr Falconer
I know that my hon. Friend is deeply committed to these issues. He raises a number of important points about further steps that the British Government might take. I am not in a position to go beyond what I have said in my statement at the moment, other than to reassure him—particularly in relation to the village that he mentions, which has been visited by a large number of Members, not just on the Government Benches but right across the House—that he is absolutely right to say that further development of the E1 settlement would be hugely damaging to a two-state solution. We will treat any further moves in that direction with the seriousness that they deserve.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
While the trade agreement with the GCC is obviously welcome, why does the Minister think it is possible to reach a trade agreement with the GCC but not to influence its members to play a more positive role in resolving the issues in Yemen, Sudan and elsewhere? They have a key role to play in these disputes. I know that he takes a very specific issue on Yemen. What more can he do to make the United Arab Emirates, for example, play a more positive role there and elsewhere?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to touch briefly on Yemen. Events there remain dire, and we continue to see famine right across the country. The behaviour of the Houthis is not in the interests of the Yemeni people. We have regular and fruitful discussions with all our partners on the GCC about Yemen, Sudan and a whole range of international crises facing us, and will continue to do so.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I am proud to be part of the Labour Government who took the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. However, the prospect of a single, unified Palestinian state is now under enormous pressure from the expansion of illegal settlements. Does the Minister agree that anyone who wishes to have a just and lasting peace in the middle east must oppose settlement expansion?
Mr Falconer
It is a great pleasure to answer a question from my hon. Friend, not least because he himself was a distinguished member of the diplomatic service. He is absolutely right.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My constituent Antonis Vradis is a much-valued and loved professor at the University of St Andrews. He is one of a number of British citizens who have been detained by the Israeli authorities in international waters and taken to Israel for processing. I have been in touch with his family, friends, colleagues and students in recent days, who are all deeply concerned about how he will be treated and when he will be released. The video that Members have already referred to seems to confirm their worst fears. Although I am pleased to see reports of those from the Israeli embassy being summoned to meet the FCDO, and I am grateful for confirmation from the Minister on the expected processing and release, were the actual calls of the Sumud flotilla raised in the meeting with the Israeli chargé d’affaires? We need those aid routes reopened and we need aid to come into Gaza under UN oversight.
Mr Falconer
They were, as they have been in every engagement with the Israeli Government since the signature of the 20-point plan. It is vital that aid gets in at the scale and in the manner envisaged under the 20-point plan.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I commend the Government’s action on Iran; they are doing the right thing where others in this Chamber would have led us down a different and dangerous path.
I agree with the Minister’s words on Palestine and Lebanon, but we are long past the point of words being anything like enough. I served in Hebron as a human rights observer 13 years ago, and what the Minister describes as happening there today was happening then. I have also visited Khan al-Ahmar, which the Israeli Government now wish to wipe off the map. Experts say that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and working to ethnically cleanse the west bank. The Israeli Government have passed a law to hang Palestinians. The Minister is my good and hon. Friend, and he says that the Government are not hesitating to act on this issue, but that is not true. Unfortunately, for far too long, we have been hesitant to take further meaningful action. Where are the comprehensive sanctions on the people committing these human rights violations and holding up aid from entering Gaza? Why do we not yet have a ban on settlement trade? Why have we not yet banned British charities that are funnelling money to settlements?
Mr Falconer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has long been committed to these issues, both during her time in this House and before, and is, I think, the only Member of this House who has been to Gaza since the conflict began. We have taken wave after wave of sanctions action. I want to reassure her that we treat these issues with the seriousness that they deserve, and I am sure I will be returning to the House in due course to update her.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
As I am sure the Minister is realising, we are all a bit fed up with yet another gaslighting statement on Israel and Palestine. There is no ceasefire in Lebanon; we all see the killings—the double and triple-tap killings—on a daily basis. As he himself said, the situation in the west bank is worse than it has ever been, with rampaging gangs kettling Palestinians into the cities where who knows what will happen to him, yet we continue to trade with these people and support them. In Gaza, whether by accident or design, there is no progress whatsoever, and the situation continues to worsen. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), says, can the Minister not see that when he stands up and says that the Government will not hesitate, we are all thinking that every statement is yet another hesitation in the face of an unfolding picture of savagery across the whole region?
I have one specific question for the Minister on the detainees from the flotilla in particular: if that is what Ben-Gvir and his henchmen are willing to do to British and European citizens on camera, what does he think they are doing to Palestinians off camera?
Mr Falconer
I made that very point in my statement. Of course, we can expect that what Mr Ben-Gvir is willing to do on camera to Europeans and others is just a fraction of what is being done behind closed doors. That is why I made that exact comparison in my statement, and it is why we sanctioned him well before many of our friends and partners.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I have written to my hon. Friend to inform him that I have a constituency interest in this urgent statement. I welcome what has already been done in bringing the Israelis in this morning to discuss the concerns of both the Government and this House. Will the Minister reassure me that the Government will consider all consular and diplomatic means and access to legal advice to highlight the cruel and dehumanising impact on our constituents, who are there with other Europeans, and ensure justice for not just our constituents, but the Palestinians?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend and former colleague in the Foreign Office for her question. We are pressing for full consular rights—we made that point this morning. We understand from the Israelis that all participants on the flotilla will be deported back to their place of origin. We are urgently following up with the Israeli Government on the detail and manner of that.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Yesterday I raised a point of order on the attack on Khan al-Ahmar and the brutality of the settler forces who are destroying lives there. That is now continuing all across the west bank, where settler violence is destroying Palestinian villages. The genocide in Gaza is continuing; the occupation of the west bank in its totality is continuing. The Minister talks about sanctions against Israel, but where are the sanctions that mean anything? Why are we still supplying arms and weapons? Why are we still supplying security information to Israel? Why are we still occasioning its military attacks against the Palestinian people? If sanctions are to mean anything, they have to do something to prevent Israel’s brutality against the entirety of the Palestinian people, be they in Gaza, in the west bank, or in refugee camps in Lebanon.
Mr Falconer
It is important to be clear that we are providing no bombs and no bullets to the Israeli Government that could be used against Palestinians. That is the decision that this Government took shortly after entry into government, and we continue to stand by it. We have put in place a range of sanctions—we have talked about Mr Ben-Gvir already this afternoon, but there is also Mr Smotrich. I think any reasonable observer would think that sanctions on both a Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Finance as quite far ranging.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The challenge for the Minister is that we have come in for a statement on the middle east, but in the last few weeks alone, we have seen the treatment of detainees being flaunted on television by an Israeli Minister, who clearly has no regard for international human law, and that clearly demands a stronger response. We have seen an ongoing restriction on aid to Gaza, which the Minister himself describes as resulting in children being bitten by rats, and we have seen an ongoing escalation in violence on the west bank. How will we make the current Israeli Government understand—as we also wish the current Iranian regime to understand—that we mean business if the Minister keeps coming to the House to tell us that he will not hesitate, but hesitates to set out what he is actually going to do in response to these incidents?
Mr Falconer
I have sought to set out the action we are taking in relation to Israel and Palestine, both our publicly announced steps and the diplomatic work going on behind the scenes, and I have tried to do the same in relation to Iran. We are in no doubt about the seriousness of the situation, and we will continue to use our full diplomatic weight to try to improve it.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I have a constituent—I am not going to name him today—who has been illegally arrested in international waters, and I agree with the Minister that there should be early, indeed immediate, consular access.
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to Egypt’s role in peacemaking in the region, particularly in seeking to bring peace and to rebuild Gaza? He mentioned the Israeli chargé d’affaires. May I counsel the Minister gently that, as the agrément progresses, whatever the choice of Israel, it should be a choice that also fits well within the United Kingdom?
I have said this before and I would like to say it again: the life of a Palestinian child is as precious as the life of an Israeli child. That is my undergirding—my starting point—in any discussions about the region. Israel’s national security Minister Ben-Gvir’s behaviour in taunting Gaza peace activists is “despicable”—that is the word of the current US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. It is very rare that I agree with Governor Huckabee, but on this occasion he is absolutely right.
Finally, criticism of the current Israeli Government over their actions in Gaza and the west bank is not anti-Israel or antisemitic. It is not bigoted or pro-Hamas or pro-Hezbollah. It is about being a robust and candid friend to an important friend and ally. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful contribution, and I am sure he could hear the welcome that his comments received from many on the Labour Back Benches. It is a sign when those who have Israel’s long-term interests closest to their hearts make exactly some of those points. I was glad to see that he also saw the Egyptian Foreign Minister this week and was able to present to him directly the views that he just described, and which I share.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
I welcome this week’s trade agreement with the gulf countries, and I give particular thanks to the Ministers and diplomats who worked hard to deliver it. Given Iran’s belligerence towards its neighbours, however, can the Minister outline what measures we are taking to support gulf states under threat from Iran, and to help de-escalate the situation there?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words, and I am glad for the opportunity to thank the excellent officials in the Foreign Office and the Department for Business and Trade. I am glad to see that the Minister for Trade has just come back into the Chamber; he played an essential role in ensuring that the free trade agreement was concluded, and we are very grateful to him.
To my hon. Friend’s question about the gulf, we work incredibly closely with our gulf partners, and we were very glad to host the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister and the United Arab Emirates’ Foreign Minister this week. We have been working closely with them, as we will continue to do, to ensure that their countries can fully defend themselves against Iran’s reckless attacks.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, having applied for an urgent question alongside the leader of Plaid Cymru in Westminster, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and other hon. Members.
One of my constituents, Katy Davidson, was on board the Global Sumud Flotilla and has been illegally arrested and likely subjected to the disgusting and degrading treatment that we have all seen. The Israeli Government flout international law after international law against British citizens. Does the Minister agree that it is time to ban all imports from the illegal settlements in the west bank, finally close the shameful arms export loopholes, and enforce a total arms embargo? What more do war criminals like Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir and others need to do before this Government act? More inaction will leave this Government firmly on the wrong side of history.
Mr Falconer
I think the loophole the hon. Member is referring to is the global supply chain of the F-35. I would welcome a bit more clarity from the Liberal Democrats on how they think that loophole can be closed and the F-35 supply chain maintained. We have discussed these issues in the Chamber a number of times, and they have been pressed in the courts. We continue to stand by our position, and I am sure the Liberal Democrats have thought it through.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Israel has been stepping up illegal land grabs in the occupied west bank, so this week’s threats by Minister Smotrich to forcibly evict the Palestinian community of Khan al-Ahmar is part of a wider pattern of illegal settlement expansion. There is a growing chorus calling for a ban on all settlement goods and on trade with Israel’s illegal settlements. That is what international law demands. What are the Government and the Minister waiting for?
Mr Falconer
I think I addressed those questions earlier, but let me reassure my hon. Friend that we continue to treat the situation with the seriousness that it deserves. I am not going to trail further announcements from the Dispatch Box, but we obviously keep all these matters under close review.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The behaviour of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir brings shame on all of us who consider ourselves to be friends of Israel. Given that the joint comprehensive plan of action was not working and Iran continued to advance its plans for a nuclear weapon, how would the Minister have de-fanged the regime? While he is right to claim some credit for the FTA with the gulf states, will he give credit, too, to his predecessors, who did a lot of the heavy lifting, and will he at least concede that the whole thing would not have been possible if we were still in the European Union?
Mr Falconer
It is very difficult to have one’s predecessor ask in Parliament for credit to be given to his predecessors. In the spirit of the bipartisanship we have shown this afternoon, I acknowledge that talks on the GCC FTA were indeed started under the previous Government—
Mr Falconer
But not finished, indeed. I am sure the Minister for Trade would be keen to emphasise how much heavy lifting has been required over recent months and years to get it over the line.
I will not enter into a hypothetical discussion about the approach that has been taken since 2015 to try to ensure that Iran did not have the degree of highly enriched uranium that it now has, and how that could have been avoided, because that is the situation we now face. We must have a serious diplomatic process that involves a reduction of HEU, which is such a danger not just to the region but to the world, including the UK. We take that with the seriousness that the right hon. Gentleman would expect.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Even as we debate today, Israel continues to commit genocide in Gaza and war crimes across Palestine. It is engaging in illegal land grabs, expanding illegal settlements at unprecedented levels, and illegally abducting and torturing activists simply for trying to deliver aid to starving children. Our duty under international law is not unclear; what is unclear is this Government’s courage to act. All we have heard again today from the Minister—it is becoming somewhat repetitive—is some light condemnation and a vague promise to act at some point in the future. I say this to the Minister very sincerely: even as we debate today, hundreds of Palestinian children are dying and starving. He has a moral and a legal duty to act today. Why will he not?
Mr Falconer
Yesterday, I heard from Palestinian children about the struggles that they face. I have taken steps at every stage to try to ensure that they get help and assistance, and that they can exercise their rights in relation to both their education and the dreadful situation that I described in my statement.
I reject my hon. Friend’s characterisation of my action and that of the Government; we take this with the seriousness that it requires. The condemnation that I have heard from across the House is for a man I have already sanctioned. For the first time in British history, a British Minister has sanctioned Israeli Ministers—and not just junior Ministers but very senior Ministers. We did it deliberately and we did it in advance of our partners. Others are considering repeating our actions. I accept his strength of feeling about the suffering. I do not accept his condemnation that we have done nothing.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Minister recognises that the Netanyahu Government are imposing a stranglehold on any possibility of Palestinian self-determination. The expansion of settlements and the ongoing horror in Gaza are all completely unacceptable. He said:
“I have been clear that we are prepared to take further action and will not hesitate to do so”,
but he comes to the Chamber again and again to hesitate. It is nearly two years since the ICJ judgment. We should have banned settlement trade years ago. It is nearly one year since the sanctions—that he repeatedly referred to today—came in, and what have we seen in that year? Ongoing horror in Gaza, in the west bank and in Lebanon. The time for hesitation is over. When will the Government stop repeatedly hesitating and take action?
Mr Falconer
I would take the point with more force if we were not today seeing our European partners looking to imitate things that we did some considerable time ago. I recognise the depth of feeling, which I share, about the suffering in Palestine and across the region, but it is simply not correct to suggest that the Government have done nothing. We have set out the action we have taken in relation to sanctions, arms exports and a range of other issues.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
Yet again, we have seen a flotilla taking essential aid to Gaza intercepted by Israel. Subsequently, the people who were trying to ensure that aid was delivered were subjected to violence, humiliation and abuse by Ben-Gvir. We should not be surprised, because last month the Israeli military approved the return of reservists involved in the rape of a Palestinian man in July 2024; the detention centre where he was held has become notorious for torture. That follows the dismissal of all charges against the Israeli reservists in March this year when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the soldiers as “heroic warriors”.
What conversations has the Minister had with Israeli officials about this pattern of glorifying rapists and allowing them to serve in the Israeli military? In his statement, he said that he has been clear that he is
“prepared to take further action”.
What is that action, and when will it come?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for the question. I can hear the frustration from colleagues, which I often hear when I indicate that further action may be possible but will not trail it before the Government take it. That is for long—
Mr Falconer
Well, I have laid out the steps that we have taken so far. Let me turn to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker). She focused in particular on sexual violence, which is about the most appalling of crimes, but if she will permit me, I want to talk a bit about the wider situation in relation to justice and accountability.
British aid workers have been killed in Israeli strikes in Gaza. There is a reasonable expectation from the House, and indeed from across the world, that the Israeli Government and the Israeli justice system will ensure accountability for everyone, but particularly when foreign nationals are involved. We continue to press for further progress in relation to accountability. If the Israeli Government and the Israeli justice system cannot demonstrate that progress, international partners—including the UK—will draw adverse judgments about what that means about Israeli systems.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I almost sympathise with the Minister, because really everybody in the House is exasperated by the lack of action. I represent Dundee, which has been twinned with Nablus on the west bank for the last 45 years. The members of the Dundee-Nablus Twinning Association write to me regularly about positive things that could be done; I will give one example. Given that entirely illegal expansion of the occupied west bank is continuing—there were 34 settlements planned in April alone—the International Court of Justice has directed states not to trade with Israel in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and other European countries such as Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Ireland are taking unilateral steps to ban trade with illegal settlements. The Minister said that he does not want to put things out early, but I think these steps are already under way—why are we not doing this? There is a precedent in UK law and policy for not trading with those who have illegally occupied lands such as Crimea and other illegally occupied parts of Ukraine. Will he please stop making excuses, and outline when the Government will finally uphold their international legal obligations and ban that trade?
Mr Falconer
I am reluctant to pass comment on the deliberations of other legislatures. The hon. Member referred to a number of European Union countries; as I am sure he knows, they have not taken steps on trade, as that is a European Union competence. They are discussing whether they might review their association agreement with Israel, but they have not yet done so. I am not in a competition, but I think any reasonable observer would say that the UK has gone further than the EU on these matters.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for engaging with me and a group of my constituents, young people and cross-party faith leaders on this issue, which continues to come up with my constituents. This week, one of my constituents wrote to me about the flotilla, outlining that peaceful volunteers were seized in international waters, which is an act explicitly prohibited under international law. I therefore welcome the Minister’s condemnation of the Israeli Government’s horrific and disgraceful actions, which we have all seen. We know that staff are working really hard to get the British nationals concerned home. He is correct in saying that we would not have needed the flotilla if Israel was allowing vital humanitarian aid to get through to the Palestinians who are in so much need.
The Minister can see the frustration of hon. Members from across the House, including the right hon. Members for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), and for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), and my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). We want to help the Minister, but we are concerned that although we come back here time and again, we do not see meaningful action that says to the people perpetrating these acts, “Enough is enough.” Every life is valuable, and every life matters; we cannot sit back and watch what is happening with impunity. What more can the Minister do, through his good offices, to say: enough is enough?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for the question, and for welcoming me to her constituency recently to discuss this. We will continue to take every step we can in recognition of the seriousness of the situation.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Minister talked earlier about accountability. My constituent Chris Hill was kidnapped and held in captivity by Israeli forces this week. I raised concerns about his wellbeing in a point of order on Monday. It has taken three days for the Government to come to the House with an update, during which time people legitimately engaged in supplying humanitarian aid and bearing witness to the Israeli Government’s aid blockade in Gaza have been subjected to public humiliation and physical harm. As the Minister said, we know what happens when the doors are not closed; we can only surmise what happens when the doors are closed. Why is the Government’s reaction characterised by hesitancy?
Mr Falconer
I do not accept the characterisation, but I reassure the right hon. Member that it does not take my being stood at the Dispatch Box for us to be taking action on behalf of British nationals in distress overseas. We have been engaged in the cases of all British nationals on the flotilla since we were first alerted.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, and his condemnation of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, in particular for their horrific and appalling treatment of both Europeans and Palestinians, but does he agree that condemnation alone is not sufficient, and that Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich should be handed over to the International Criminal Court for their ongoing genocide in Gaza, and the illegal behaviour that they have demonstrated in many aspects of the war in the middle east? I welcome the Minister’s announcing that Iran should not have nuclear powers, but what gives us the right to be judge and jury on that, if we are not demanding the same from Israel? Does he agree that if no one in the middle east is to hold nuclear power, Israel needs to disarm as well?
Mr Falconer
The UK is a committed member of both the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the Rome statute, and we encourage all states to fully abide by their commitments under both, including in relation to the International Criminal Court.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. According to the United Nations, the number of violent incidents in the west bank caused by illegal settlers increased to a record level last August. It is no coincidence that that is the time of maximum harvests in the area. Will the Government continue to enact sanctions against violent settler movements, and will they also start to ban the import of settlement goods? Will the Minister sanction the politicians who are inciting the violence, and who are responsible for the insidious—disgraceful, in fact—legislation enacted against Palestinians? That includes the introduction of the death penalty, and the petty and short-sighted removal of recognition of academic degrees gained in Palestine, so that people with those degrees cannot work as teachers in Israel, or anywhere else where Israel holds sway.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind Members that questions need to be much shorter if we are going to get business done today.
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. I will not go further on sanctions, for the reasons I have set out, but I am sure she is aware that I and the Foreign Secretary condemned the death penalty measures that she referred to, and we continue to do so.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I am sure my hon. Friend acknowledges the frustration that he can hear from Members from across the whole House. Let me make some suggestions on what he could do to make a difference: take action against companies bidding to build the E1 settlement of 3,400 homes on Palestinian soil; introduce a trade ban on settlement products and services; and suspend trade concessions with Israel. It is clear that criticism alone does not deter the Israeli Government. Those are not just my suggestions; they are the suggestions of 32 leading former ambassadors, who say that the UK can do this. Surely we should be able to act.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Minister to give an example of a really nice, short answer.
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend. I am aware of the letter.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s coming to the House this afternoon to provide an update. I believe that he is genuinely concerned about what is happening in Gaza, but the breaches of international law by the Israeli Government continue, and the suffering in Gaza is worsening. I have just one question: will he please give some assurance that we are not still sending arms to Israel, either directly or indirectly, that are then used against the Palestinians?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I remind Members that they can cut straight to the question.
Mr Falconer
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we are selling no bombs and no bullets that could be used against the Palestinians.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will truncate my question. Israel is demonstrating a disinterest in peace and a disregard for international norms. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to put more pressure on our regional partners, with whom we have recently created a trade arrangement, so that we can achieve the outcomes that our unilateral measures are failing to deliver?
Mr Falconer
I absolutely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that we need to work with our partners across the region to have the best effect.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
In Lebanon, the Government’s contribution to the humanitarian response is welcome, but the response does not work when aid workers are being killed; 116 healthcare and rescue personnel have already died. The House is united in condemning these violations of international law, but does the Minister accept that the killing will not stop until there is accountability?
Mr Falconer
There must be accountability. I met members of the Lebanese Red Cross during my recent visit, and was appalled to see further killings of those in their brave number subsequently.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for schools, learning and assessment. I thank the Minister for his virtual visit to a school in Hebron yesterday. What did he hear directly from pupils at that school about their hopes for peace, and what more can we do to ensure that everyone in Palestine and across the world has the right to an education?
Mr Falconer
I heard from girls wanting to be doctors and teachers that they could not get to school in the morning because of restrictions. I heard that their dads could not walk them to school or pick them up at night, and that their education was regularly very significantly disrupted. We need to see progress on all those points.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The Finance Minister of Israel, Smotrich, has alleged that an arrest warrant has been issued for him. He has said that this alleged arrest warrant is “a declaration of war”, and that his first move will be to demolish the village of Khan al-Ahmar. Does my hon. Friend condemn any attempt to put pressure on the International Criminal Court, and does he condemn any attempt to punish the Palestinian people in this way? Does he agree that people should face justice for war crimes?
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Although I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, given all we have heard today, my constituents and I are concerned about the reported closure of the Conflict and Security Monitoring Project. I have seen at first hand how important its work is, and how important the projects are that it undertakes, in order to monitor human rights violations in the region. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the Foreign Office is still able to track the number of potential breaches of international law in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon, and compare that to the number this time last year?
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I declare an interest as a member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, but I speak for myself. The actions of Minister Gvir, seen on the news last night, are an utter disgrace. As a Jewish MP, I was ashamed, for sometimes it is not easy to be a Jewish MP in this House. Does the Minister agree that the actions of certain Israeli Ministers are not the responsibility of the Anglo-Jewish population, and that there can be no excuse for the terrible epidemic of antisemitism we have seen on British streets? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Mr Falconer
I could not agree more with my hon. Friends. The actions of the Israeli Government are nothing to do with British Jewry. I was so pleased and honoured to be with members of the community on Monday, and made that very point to them. There is no excuse of any kind for antisemitism; Israel has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
That concludes the statement. I thank Members for shortening their questions, so that we could get everybody in.
Humble Address: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government’s return to the Humble Address on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. I will speak briefly, because I am conscious of the time.
I have today laid before the House documents that the Government have identified that the House requested in its 24 February 2026 Humble Address, covering the creation of the role of special representative for trade and investment in 2001, the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and the advice of officials and Ministers.s This has not been straightforward. Departments have changed in the intervening years and most documentation was then paper-based. In addition, we have had to be careful about not compromising the police investigation. I am glad to say that we have published 11 documents today, including: the formal appointment proposal, evidence that Ministers were content with the proposal, internal communications, and media and press briefings. The documents speak for themselves, and all hon. Members can read them as they are available in the Vote Office.
I want to assure the House that we have proceeded on the basis of maximum transparency and have only redacted material that bears no relevance to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, such as travel proposals for other members of the royal family or content that would otherwise prejudice international relations. I reiterate that the Government are fully co-operating with Thames Valley police in their investigation into potential misconduct in public office. I commend this statement to the House.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of both the long and short versions of his statement. We support the Humble Address and continue to support full transparency in this matter. I have just a few questions.
I think the Minister said that this is just the start of a full disclosure. Will he share with the House whether there will be further disclosure, or is this the final amount? If there are to be further tranches, will he give the House a clear and final timetable for when the process will be complete? Is the absence of a formal record of due diligence or any vetting process evidence that the Government raised no questions at the time about the appointment? Where, if anywhere, are the documented concerns or challenge from officials or Ministers at the time?
When will the full set of files that this House requested relating to Lord Mandelson’s role, and particularly any advice, correspondence or due diligence connected to his appointment, be released to the House? Finally, the Minister has a large trade envoy programme under his responsibility. What due diligence are the Government doing on appointees to that trade envoy programme, and do those appointees follow a code of conduct that governs their behaviour?
Chris Bryant
Yes, there was a long version but, to be honest, I would basically have been reading out the written ministerial statement that we laid at 10.30 am. Much as I love the sound of my own voice, I am not sure that the House does—I think I have united the House on that—so I thought I would go for the shorter version. The papers speak for themselves.
The hon. Lady asked whether there will be more. I suspect that there will not. I think that this is nearly everything—certainly, this is everything that we have come across so far. Of course, we will keep on looking, notwithstanding the complexity around searching in paper-based systems in multiple Departments. I give the House a guarantee that if there is more to publish, I will come back with more, but I suspect that this may be our last tranche.
The hon. Lady asked whether Ministers raised questions at the time. I have published everything that relates to that period. There is nothing else, I think, to be found. The statements that say Ministers were content is the sum total of the response. I suppose, to some degree, that is understandable, bearing in mind that the palace had made it very clear that Her late Majesty was very keen that Andrew be given a job, that Andrew was keen to take on the job, and that the job had previously been done by another member of the royal family in broadly the same terms.
I am afraid that I cannot answer the question about the Lord Mandelson papers for the simple reason that I have been trying very much to keep this Humble Address separate from the other one. We had a different set of procedures to go through. I briefed Members on the Conservative Front Bench, as I did Members on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, earlier this week, when they indicated that they would be perfectly happy if we did not make a statement or respond to an urgent question of any kind, because the papers speak for themselves.
On trade envoys, the hon. Lady makes a perfectly legitimate point. I made the point the last time around that although I understand the connection people make between the role that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor played and that of modern trade envoys, they are actually very different, partly because of the royal nature of Andrew’s role in the past, but also because all trade envoys whom we appoint at the moment are Members of either this House or the House of Lords. They are not only bound by the code of conduct of this House or the other, but bound in exactly the same way as any Minister would be in terms of the code that is expected of them. We make all that extremely clear to trade envoys. Since I have been appointed, I have gathered the trade envoys together on two or three occasions, and whenever a new one is appointed, I sit with them and go through the details.
Chris Bryant
I hear the right hon. Member’s chuntering, in his regular application process to be made a trade envoy. I am still considering his proposal.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Minister has so far given us two reasons why the statement he has just given at the Dispatch Box is different from the one that was sent, embargoed, an hour ago. If it is the same as the written statement, why was it sent out as embargoed? I should also say, dare I say it, that transparency should not be trumped by time limits in relation to the business of this House.
It has been three months since the House passed the Liberal Democrat Humble Address to release the files showing how and why Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as a UK special representative for trade and investment, and until today the Government have published only one written statement, which told us very little. The Minister has not previously come to the Dispatch Box at all; I note the difference from the response to the Humble Address, in the name of the official Opposition, relating to Peter Mandelson.
The files that we have seen show that there was no vetting by the Government and that, even then, no questions appear to have been asked. The lack of documentation provided is itself concerning, as is the time taken to get this far. The Minister has said that he is not sure whether there are more documents. When will he be sure, and when will he release any remaining documents? The documents we do have clearly show concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest. It started with golf, but we all know what came next. Why did that not lead to any scrutiny or vetting, not just at the start but at any stage during Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s tenure as an envoy? The guardrails were not in place. The appointment came into effect more than a year after Ministers said that they were happy for it to happen, and the files also show that the then Prime Minister had been aware from the start and did nothing. There was time for the warning signs to be taken seriously. Why were no questions asked at all in that period?
In his written statement to the House today, the Minister excused the lack of vetting and oversight because Andrew was a royal replacing a royal. Does he agree that safeguards must be put in place for any future such appointments? Can he tell the House whether officials or Ministers were aware at the time of Andrew’s connection to Jeffrey Epstein, which had already been established when the appointment was made? Was this connection monitored? Finally, can the Minister confirm, given their absence from this release, that there are no documents pertaining to communications with Peter Mandelson about the appointment?
Chris Bryant
If I am honest, I am bit miffed by the attitude of Liberal Democrat Front Benchers, because I have regularly updated them ever since the Humble Address was passed. I have been as open as possible with them, and they have privately indicated to me, regularly, that they were perfectly happy with the progress we were making.
I thought there would be some difficulties for us to overcome, in particular the connection between the Humble Address and the police investigation—obviously, we do not want to do anything that might imperil the investigation. I think all hon. Members would agree that, if the police were to find evidence and felt that the Crown Prosecution Service should take forward charges of misconduct in public office, we would all support the prosecuting authorities in doing their duty. I explained all that to the hon. Lady’s hon. Friends, who indicated that they were perfectly happy with that process. I had thought that the police might ask us not to publish some of the material; in fact, they have been very co-operative and have allowed us to publish everything.
We have made some minor redactions, as I have said. Some of those relate to material that has absolutely nothing to do with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. For instance, where there is talk about the Royal Visits Committee or visits by other members of the royal family, we have redacted that material, as we have material where there are possibilities that we might upset our international allies.
The hon. Lady asked whether any more papers will be coming along. At this point, I am not aware of any. As I said earlier, I suspect that this is the sum total of what we have. She quite rightly makes the point— I think a lot of people are surprised—that, as I think we have known for some time, no vetting was done. It has been standard not to vet members of the royal family. She asked me whether we would vet anybody else who was appointed to such a role. We have no intention of appointing anybody to such a role in the future, but of course we are grateful for the support that the royal family regularly provides with international visits around the world. I think everybody, including those who disagreed with it, has accepted that His Majesty’s visit to the United States of America was a great success. I do not think we should be vetting His Majesty the King, and I do not think the hon. Lady is suggesting that either; I think she was just trying to get grumpy with me.
I have tried to answer all the hon. Lady’s questions. I reassure her that, honestly, we have moved at pace, as fast as we can. It is difficult to find some of the paperwork because it is literally paperwork, and the Government Departments have changed multiple times in the intervening years, but we have moved as fast as we can.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
May I just say for the record that I have not made any formal application to be a trade and investment envoy? I previously was a trade and investment envoy under Prime Minister Theresa May, who is now in another place. What I am concerned about is the fact that this particular programme is not cross-party. It was set up by David Cameron, now Lord Cameron, and its strength, I felt, was in the fact that it was cross-party rather than full of mostly Labour Members and Labour peers. I just wanted to put that on the record.
The Minister references the amount of paper-based documentation, but of course, we have not all gone to the cloud overnight. If he goes down to the National Archives at Kew, he will find a lot of paper records going back quite a long time, not just from the last 20 or so years.
On a more substantive point, I want to ask the Minister about the role of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. He will know, as a former Foreign Office Minister, that diplomatic telegrams are sent by embassies—often by ambassadors—back to London, and possibly even to the royal household. I wonder whether any of those have been disclosed in the papers, which I have not had time to read today because they have only just been laid.
Finally, have any of those diptels, or responses to them, made their way to the office of senior officials in the royal household? Did they know anything about the activities of the former Prince Andrew? Who did they speak to about it, and what action, if any, was taken?
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman says he has not applied for a post as a trade envoy. I do not want to show the House the text messages he sent me, but anyway, he makes a fair point. I want to make sure that the trade envoy programme is really effective and delivers around the world. I was with Lord Alderdice the other day, who is not a member of the Labour party, at the London stock exchange when the Uzbek national investment fund was being listed in the UK. His intervention in Uzbekistan has been enormously important in taking forward some of these investments into the UK and listings at the LSE. Indeed, we could see a further investment at the LSE, which would be the biggest ever listing here. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who is a Conservative Member, is also a trade envoy and does a good job.
I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman’s question about diptels. As I said earlier, we are trawling through everything we can to see whether there is anything else that is of relevance under the Humble Address terms. So far, we have published everything we have that is relevant. I can guarantee the House that if there is anything more, we will of course come forward.
I was also asked by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) whether there was any monitoring of the relationship between Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein. I did not answer that question; I apologise. I have seen absolutely nothing to that effect. If I had, I would have published it.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
May I first make it clear that I have no desire to be a trade envoy? Aberdeen is the best place on earth and I do not want to be anywhere else if I can help it.
The Minister of State said in his statement that people are still looking. Will he advise us if they stop looking? I appreciate that they might currently be actively looking because there may be boxes that they have not gone through, but will he advise us when there is definitely an end to this, unless somebody accidentally comes across something?
My second question relates to future trade envoys. I am not sure how much the process for appointing them has changed, but can he give us a reassurance that the process is much better than it used to be? If it is not, can he give us a reassurance that he will look at that, so that we can all feel comfortable that our trade envoys are the right people, or certainly not the wrong people, to be doing that job?
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the hon. Lady that she does not want to be a trade envoy. I often feel as if I am a trade envoy for Scotland, because we are often securing good deals, as we just have with the Gulf Co-operation Council, and in India. We have just done remarkably well—
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
indicated dissent.
Chris Bryant
I see the right hon. Lady representing Plaid Cymru shaking her head; we have just done really well for Welsh lamb farmers in the GCC deal in the Gulf.
Will I come back to the House when we stop looking? I do not think there will be any more material. Obviously, I will come back if there is more material. I will probably make a written ministerial statement rather than an oral statement just to say that we have ceased the process.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) asked about due diligence. It is a significant point; of course we do due diligence before anybody is appointed as a trade envoy under the present scheme, which, as I say, is very different from what happened in relation to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. I should also say that the Business and Trade Committee is currently doing an inquiry into some of these issues. I am very happy to talk about the present trade envoy programme with the Committee, but there are delicacies about what we can say about the past in case the police investigation could be compromised. I am very keen not to do that, and I am glad that the police have been so helpful in enabling us to publish everything that we can today.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
A Downing Street spokesperson is currently saying that a further tranche of files relating to the appointment are to be published at a future date, which is different from what the Minister is saying at the Dispatch Box. Perhaps he could clarify.
Chris Bryant
To be absolutely clear, I think this is probably the last tranche of material that we have. If I had more to publish, I would have published it today; I have not got anything more to publish. I reserve the right to publish more if there is more stuff, but to some degree we are entering into speculation. As I say, if there is more, we will publish it. All along I have instructed officials to work as fast and to be as transparent as we can. That is precisely what we will do, but as I say, at the moment, there is no more to publish. By the way, Madam Deputy Speaker, we got a great GCC deal with the Gulf yesterday.
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
Thursday 21st May 2026
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill 2026-27 View all Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 68 / Noes: 242 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
For generations, the steel industry has stood at the very heart of our national story. From the furnaces of Sheffield to the docks of Port Talbot, from Scunthorpe to Redcar, steel forged not only the railways, ships, bridges and factories that powered the industrial revolution, it built communities, livelihoods and a sense of pride in Britain. Steel made in Britain built our Navy, helped to defend our freedoms in times of war and laid the foundations for modern infrastructure right around the world. When people speak of the United Kingdom becoming a great industrial nation, they speak of the skill, resilience and determination of the steelworkers who helped to shape that destiny by the fruits of their labour.
The decline of the steel industry destroyed jobs, diminished skills and damaged communities, but it never, ever diluted the pride, resilience and determination of those working people. Today, this Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill repays, in part, the debt that we owe Britain’s steel communities. Steel is integral to the key growth-driving sectors of our industrial strategy: to advanced manufacturing and the car industry; to clean energy, in our wind turbines and our grid infrastructure; and to security and defence, in fighter jets, battleships and submarines. It is essential to this Government’s growth mission to create a strong, resilient economy delivering for working people. That is why Britain’s steel sector accounts for thousands of jobs, right across the country.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
For the reasons that the Secretary of State has mentioned, the nationalisation of the steel industry is a noble endeavour, with which many of us from across the House will agree, but there are people in Wales pointing to the fact that, despite there being legislation, Port Talbot has lost thousands of jobs. Does he recognise the feelings that remain in Wales because the option of nationalisation by this Government was not on the table at the time?
Peter Kyle
As the right hon. Lady knows, I have been to Port Talbot and I have launched a steel strategy since this Government came into office. The vast majority of the decline that she describes happened under the previous Administration. We are cleaning up the mess on a whole bunch of fronts and in different areas of our public life. This Government have invested £500 million into that plant, and we have launched a steel strategy that I believe will give it a fruitful and prosperous future. We are doing what it takes to be the partner needed in these times.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The nationalisation of the steel industry explicitly links our domestic and international policies. It demonstrates the need for us to go out and champion our steel sector by filling its order books, as we have been able to do because of the wonderful trade deal created with Nigeria, which is expanding its ports and railways, that has been achieved by this Government. That is the type of work that I am doing in southern Africa, and it is the type of work that we should all be going out to do on behalf of our country and our growth agenda.
Peter Kyle
The work that my hon. Friend is doing is incredibly important to fulfilling the mission, and the possibility that the British steel sector has in the 2020s and going forward. That is the purpose of having a strategy where we invest and modernise, and then at times we need to protect as well. These are the things that we are doing to deliver a long-term, sustainable and global future for Britain’s steel industry.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I have two quick questions for the Secretary of State. First, if the Bill passes, how are the global competitors to British forged steel likely to react? Secondly, if our steel becomes more expensive than the global market norm, what choice will manufacturers in the UK be faced with about where to base their manufacturing?
Peter Kyle
I am not sure why the right hon. Gentleman would think that British steel would be more expensive as a result, but let us take one step back: if we did not protect, there would be no steel sector to export in the first place. That is why I took the decision to invest, to modernise and to protect where needed. If this Government had continued on the same trajectory that we inherited from the previous Government, I would fear for any steelworks at all being capable to export, let alone producing domestic supply as well. This is the future that we are now creating.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Peter Kyle
I am going to make some progress because the debate has been cut short. I have taken a few interventions and I am sure I will find time for the right hon. Gentleman to intervene later in my opening remarks, but first let me make a bit of progress.
I have pledged to ensure that Britain retains its capacity and capability to manufacture steel. It is a commitment that I have made to hon. Members in this House and it is my commitment to the steel communities of this country. This House acted last year to support British Steel, which is one of the country’s most vital steel firms. We recalled Parliament to pass the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 so that the company’s blast furnaces could remain lit and its workforce could remain protected. I am grateful to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for his leadership during that time, and I am grateful to the House for supporting that vital piece of legislation.
When we intervened then, we were certain that there was a future for British Steel. Our determination now is that the future may best be served by full public ownership in the national interest, not because of ideology, but because of practical pragmatism. Public ownership would allow us to explore future opportunities for the company and to retain its vital resource as a critical piece of our national infrastructure—one that is essential to our economic resilience. I want British Steel to play its part in driving up our domestic steel production to ensure that 50% of the steel used in this country is made in this country.
Dr Murrison
In keeping open the options that the Secretary of State hints at, has he had any discussions with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence? At least for the foreseeable future, there will always be a need for virgin steel for certain defence applications.
Peter Kyle
The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. This Government are determined to make, produce and use more steel from the British sector in lots of different areas of the economy, and we want to ensure that we are using Government spending and procurement in driving up steel production in the UK.
I had the privilege to visit the Agratas gigafactory in Somerset. It is in a different sector, but it is using 231 tonnes of British steel in its production. That is using an amount of Government investment as well, so it has Government investment and private sector investment and is using British steel. That shows that when we align our priorities, we can drive up demand for British steel.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I want to ask the Secretary of State about the breadth of the Bill. Clause 1 makes it clear that a “steel undertaking” includes those businesses that have the “manufacture or processing” of iron or steel as part of their operations. Is there any lower threshold to that? Is a business that has only 1% of its operations in iron or steel liable to nationalisation under the Bill?
Under clause 2, the Secretary of State is entitled to determine the public interest and can nationalise if it would support
“the economy of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom.”
I have the same question: is there any lower threshold? Would the interests of one town where a steel facility is located be sufficient to justify the nationalisation of an entire company?
Peter Kyle
The public value test is a high test, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that is the case on seeing and reading the legislation, as he has done.
I have set the bar high enough that this power would be triggered only in extraordinary circumstances. These are things that we can test in Committee in the coming days—I believe that will be next week. [Interruption.] It will be in the next sitting week, when we return from recess. Do not worry; we are not recalling Parliament again. I will address this matter a bit more in my speech. This power will not be used routinely; it is a specific power, and the test for it will be high.
Peter Kyle
I will make some progress.
To that end, we began negotiations in good faith with Jingye, the owner of British Steel, to see if a commercial sale was viable, but that did not prove to be possible. We could not agree terms that would have safeguarded simultaneously the integrity of the business and the interests of the taxpayer. That is why the Prime Minister announced the Government’s intention to bring British Steel into public ownership, subject to the public interest test being met at the time of that decision. That is why we need to pass the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill now, to give us the power to make that possible.
Let me be clear to the House. In answer to the question from the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the powers given to the Government by the legislation cannot be exercised without due caution and proper care. These powers are bold, but they are not boundless. They can be used only where there is a clear public interest and where they will be needed to safeguard British steelmaking capability. The Bill does not nationalise British Steel in and of itself, but it grants the Government powers to do so if considered necessary. That is the scope of the legislation we are debating today.
Sir Jeremy Wright
The Secretary of State is being generous. I take him at his word as I do not think that he intends to use this legislation otherwise than appropriately. However, there is an important point to be made about the language in the Bill as it stands. As he knows, the public interest test is defined in certain ways in clause 2, which states that the test “is not limited to” the grounds listed, so there could be other grounds on which the public interest might be met. I have already pointed out one aspect in which the public interest test is relatively broad. I invite the Secretary of State to look again at the public interest test to make sure that we do not just rely on his word, which I do, but that we are confident that succeeding Secretaries of State cannot misuse this power to nationalise too broadly.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s intervention. I knew when I was bringing these powers in and working through the legislation that they would be an important part of the Bill and rightly the subject of scrutiny. There will be significant time in Committee of the whole House for Members to scrutinise the legislation. We are modelling this Bill on the Banking Act 2009, which has worked effectively. In that circumstance, the powers were used during the financial crisis in extremis, and those powers, on which we are modelling this Bill, have not been used irresponsibly since. I have been clear about my expected use of these powers, and the bar set in the legislation meets my expectations, including limiting my ability to use these powers in ways that would cause concern for Members.
For too long, the steel sector in this country has been left to fend for itself, abandoned by Government, demoralised, starved of resources and the victim of international market distortions. Crude steel production has declined by more than 50% in the past decade. Capabilities have been reduced, and communities have been let down. Previous Governments have been too reactive and not proactive. This Government will not repeat the errors of the past. We are building the future for British Steel. While the industry faces challenges today, we will do everything we can to help it modernise and grow. This legislation allows us to apply that policy to this industry. We recognise that securing the long-term future of the UK steel sector relies on public and private investment for modernisation, so that the UK can become a global leader in clean green steel, electric arc furnaces and decarbonised steel production.
We recognise that blast furnace production will need to continue in the immediate future and that a managed transition is vital to maintaining supply. We need this legislation to raise resilience, to protect businesses up and down the country that depend on Britain’s steel, to defend the workforce at British Steel and to safeguard the communities built on British steel. The significance of steel is not simply a matter of history; it is a matter of our national future. In an uncertain world, the ability to make steel remains a strategic national asset. Steel is essential for our transport networks, our energy security, our housing and our transition to a greener economy. That is why supporting the British steel industry is about more than protecting jobs, important though they are. Supporting British Steel—
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Peter Kyle
I will give way in just a moment. Supporting British Steel is about more than national pride, although we are proud of the steelworkers who help build it. Nationalising British Steel is about hope and faith in the future.
Warinder Juss
I did not mean to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but I thought this was an appropriate time to intervene. As a member of the GMB trade union executive council, I was pleased to see my union welcome the Government’s move to nationalise British Steel, which it described as a
“decisive and timely intervention by the Government which will protect one of the UK’s most important industries.”
That sentiment has been echoed throughout the trade union movement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must engage with the trade unions throughout this process and utilise their expertise in this area to secure the long-term future of British Steel?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. Workers in steel production facilities have played a really important role in shaping our policies, helping us constructively to find a way through. Members on both sides of the House were prodding me to release the steel strategy more swiftly, but there were so many moving parts at the time of developing it. There were global forces at work, different ownership models and different production facilities, with different challenges, in different parts of the steel community. I will say this again: the unions played a highly constructive role. I pay tribute to GMB, Community and others for helping us to design our policies and find a way through some really challenging strategic issues.
Together with our measures on automotives, digital technology, the life sciences, the defence industry, clean energy, ceramics and chemicals—on which we made announcements today—and advanced manufacturing, taking the power to make possible the nationalisation of British Steel heralds the new dawn of an age of British industrialisation.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Given that no UK steel producers produce the specialist grades of steel used by precision engineers such as Gibbs Gears in Stoke Mandeville, in my constituency, which supplies components for the aerospace and defence sectors, what is in this Bill for them? All they can see are incoming tariffs on the steel that they necessarily have to import because nobody makes it here.
Peter Kyle
The hon. Gentleman will know that when I took the difficult decision to introduce measures, I did so for products that compete directly with the products that we are capable of making domestically. Speciality Steel UK is going through an administration process at the moment, but when that is complete and the company is up and running properly, I need to make sure that its products and services are protected and viable domestically. Given the world in which we are living, where national resilience is so important to our nation and the economy in a way that it simply has not been for decades, the decisions that I am making to ensure that British steel production is viable and sustainable are of paramount importance.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
Peter Kyle
I am going to make a bit more progress.
While the Government are working alongside businesses to invest in, modernise and protect Britain’s manufacturing base, the amendment would deny the Bill its Second Reading. The very people who did so much to damage the steel industry in government are now trying to do so again in opposition—then as tragedy, and now as farce. As such, the House should reject the amendment. Britain’s steel industry needs an activist, interventionist Government, and it needs determination, decisiveness and delivery. It does not need a Government who have their hands tied, their room for manoeuvre blocked and their ability to act denied. Britain must have a strong domestic steel industry—now and into the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. A lot of Members with a direct constituency interest rightly want to put their remarks on the record. There will be an immediate six-minute time limit for Back-Bench speeches, but we will very swiftly move to three minutes to enable as many Members as possible to speak on this important topic. I call the shadow Minister.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill because it believes that politicians should not be running businesses; because expropriating businesses sets a precedent that will deter inward investment into other UK businesses; because the Bill exposes taxpayers to unlimited liabilities; because the powers that the Bill confers on Ministers are far wider in scope than would be required for its stated purpose; and because it fails to contain any measures that would address the issues which are currently making domestic production of steel unprofitable such as higher employment costs and policies in pursuit of net zero, such as carbon taxes and associated regulations and levies.”
Conservatives will never be neutral about the deindustrialisation of our country, but we do not believe that politicians or Whitehall bureaucrats should run businesses. Instead, we need a Government who do fewer things better, such as defending our nation, securing energy supplies and restoring the nation’s finances. We believe in British steelmaking and the importance of sovereign capabilities—not just steelworks, but the steel supply chain, critical minerals and many defence- related technologies—but that is not what this Bill does. This Bill is the Government’s attempt to break out of a mess we warned one year ago they were getting themselves into, and it fails even in the Government’s own terms. It does not keep the blast furnaces open and it does not guarantee that military needs can be met domestically.
Let us be clear what we are doing today. We are being asked to nationalise British Steel, and put the British taxpayer permanently on the hook for a business that this Government had every chance to keep in private hands, but chose not to. They ignored plans to open electric arc furnaces on Teesside, and chose to let the situation deteriorate until the only option left was the one that suited their ideology. The Prime Minister went kowtowing to China, gave it an embassy spy base and, instead of a deal on Jingye, came back with a box of fortune cookies with only a bill for the taxpayer to be found inside.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I just wish to seek some clarity from the hon. Gentleman. Is the Conservatives’ position that they would prefer British Steel in the hands of the Chinese than the British?
Andrew Griffith
That was a waste of an intervention. If the hon. Member lets me continue, I will explain exactly what the Conservative plan is for British Steel, and it is a better plan and a more sustainable plan than we have heard from the Secretary of State today. This Government did not inherit—
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
As the shadow Minister was unable to respond to the previous intervention, would he like to explain why the Conservative Government sold British Steel to the Chinese in 2019 against my specific advice?
Andrew Griffith
When it suits the hon. Gentleman, he claims to be a fan of the late Margaret Thatcher, but he seems to have forgotten that most of her time in office was spent untangling the mess of Labour’s past nationalisations. Unlike him, she did not bend with the wind or find herself in the same Lobby as a Government who have hiked taxes to record highs, driven wealth offshore and drowned business in red tape.
Members would like to know what our plan is, and our plan is to address the cause, not the symptoms. [Interruption.] Labour Members would do well to listen to this, and we might have more of a steel industry left if they do. We cannot have an industrial policy for steel without an energy policy for industry. Britain has the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, and every choice the Government are making has pushed those prices further up. This week, they voted against new licences in the North sea, choosing to import from Norway gas that could be drilled here, at a cost of 200,000 jobs and £12 billion in tax revenue.
The Secretary of State knows this and his Back Benchers know this, but the Prime Minister is too weak to stand up to his windmill-fetishist Energy Secretary. We have offered an alternative. Our cheap plan would slash energy prices and improve energy security. Why would the Government not want that? If they were genuinely interested in securing the future of steelmaking, as well as those of many other industries, they could have come here today and adopted that plan. Instead, this Bill is an indictment—
Andrew Griffith
I will happily give way, as long as the hon. Member is going to talk about our cheap energy plan.
Andrew Griffith
The only way we are going to have a sustainable steelmaking industry in this country, and the same applies to the manufacturing sector and our defence supply chain, is lower energy costs. That is the only sustainable way.
Andrew Griffith
We have a plan for sustainable steelmaking. The Government do not have a plan for sustainable steelmaking. Ministers themselves have admitted that the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe will close. They are reverting to a plan that already exists.
The Bill is an indictment of this Government’s modus operandi—a spray and pray Government who write blank cheques from the taxpayer and call that a strategy. We are doomed to relearn the hard lessons of the 1970s: if it moves, tax the hell out of it; when it stops moving, subsidise it. It was socialist idol Tony Benn who wanted to nationalise everything that moved, and one result that the Government may care to look at was the state-owned Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering company, which simultaneously made car radiators and orange juice. When the Government last ran British Steel in the late 1970s, the company’s losses hit £1.3 billion a year. Since Labour’s botched nationalisation of just a year ago, it has already spent £500 million of taxpayers’ money—£1.3 million a day.
Where is the Government’s published, costed and scrutinised plan for what nationalised British Steel will look like in five years’ time, or even in one year’s time? I have read the Bill and there is not one. There is no provision for a proper impact assessment before the sweeping powers are used. There is no acknowledgment of the monumental decommissioning liabilities—in the billions—that will sit on the Treasury’s balance sheet. There is a sunset clause, but it can be extended indefinitely by Ministers—a sunset where the sun never sets.
The House deserves better than this. We deserve a Bill with a proper thought-through plan. The Government have turned a negotiation into a crisis, a crisis into an emergency and an emergency into this nationalisation. We know that Ministers, however well-meaning, will be unable to resist using their power to tilt the playing field in favour of steel businesses that they themselves own: no longer the referee, they will be on the pitch wearing one of the teams’ shirts. There is no better example of that than their plans on steel tariffs.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
What does the shadow Minister make of tilting the balance in favour of communities in Redcar and across Teesside, when his Government sat on their hands and saw the blast furnace go to the wall? Is that his definition of sustainability—to let those businesses and communities collapse?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Member would be better addressing that question to his own Ministers, who, notwithstanding the nationalisation, acknowledged that the blast furnaces will cease—they will go dark and close on this Government’s watch. The Bill does not protect blast furnaces and he should invite the Minister, when he winds up, to talk about the future there. There was a plan to invest in British Steel in Redcar to secure those jobs, but the Government pulled the chain—
Andrew Griffith
There was absolutely a plan before the election to open arc furnaces in Redcar—that was absolutely case—and to move Scunthorpe operations to Redcar.
I asked the Secretary of State to address the issue of tariffs. There is no better example of the folly of these plans—
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Andrew Griffith
No, I am going to make some progress on tariffs. A number of hon. Members have raised this very important issue, shedding light on the way that the Government are tilting the playing field on tariffs. Under this Government, we have already seen a flurry of Trump-style tariffs—doubling steel tariffs and halving quotas—that elevate the interests of one firm over the automotive, aerospace, advanced manufacturing and defence sectors. Firms involved in the supply chains of AUKUS and Tempest are now looking at shifting tooling and jobs to other countries, instead of manufacturing components here.
Saqib Bhatti
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way; he is making an excellent speech. Specifically on tariffs, does he agree that the approach is illogical? Reducing quotas will decrease the supply, and increasing the tariffs will increase the cost. I listened to the Secretary of State very closely. He talked about getting domestic production here, but by the time that happens, most of the businesses will have gone to the wall. Does my hon. Friend agree that the approach is illogical?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point, and that point has been made by other hon. Members and across the manufacturing industry. We are at risk of losing critical parts of our defence, aerospace and automotive supply chains.
Kit Malthouse
Does my hon. Friend agree that although the Bill appears to be an attempt at providing a simple solution for one industry, we need to be careful what we wish for? A huge amount of steel is used in the car industry—I do not know if Members have seen the number of Chinese cars appearing on our streets. If we have elevated and protected steel markets in the UK, at a time when we have a massive global oversupply of steel, we will not stand a chance of competing with the finished goods that use all that cheap oversupply. We will end up subsidising the car industry like we did back in the 1970s. That would have a particular impact in my constituency, where firms such as Stannah Stairlifts use steel in advanced manufacturing, and face having no choice but to consider offshoring their production.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) have made exactly the right point: we need a more thoughtful approach.
I have written to the Secretary of State, as have many of my colleagues, asking that the tariffs are delayed for six months while the Department does more work; that the Government investigate more specialist grades of steel; that within the broader tariff buckets, they look again at the steel alloys used in the defence, aerospace and automotive sectors that are simply not made here today, because there are perhaps unintended consequences of the tariffs; that they be more forensic in their approach; and that they bring forward the measures the Conservatives have talked about on industrial energy costs, which are damaging not just the steel industry but many other industries’ and our basis on which to compete.
There is no point securing what the Secretary of State thinks is in the national interest for one steel manufacturer in a particular location if the foreseeable consequence, unintended or otherwise, is to ship offshore large parts of our high-end automotive manufacturing, engineering and defence industries, so that they are lost forever and conducted in other countries. I have raised that serious point with the Minister, and I ask him to address it.
Luke Myer
I am afraid that I want to give the hon. Member another chance to answer the question from my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), which was not about the prospect of a future EAF on Teesside—a prospect that I support but that the Leader of the Opposition confirmed from the Dispatch Box was not as advanced as the hon. Member claims. My hon. Friend’s question was about the crash closure of the blast furnace at Redcar in 2015, which ripped 3,000 jobs out of our region. What message does the hon. Member have for the people of Redcar, whose Government he was in when that happened?
Andrew Griffith
I am afraid that the hon. Member ought to look again at the calendar, because I was not only not in Government but not in this House—I was getting on in business trying to help grow the British economy. When the same issue arose in Port Talbot, it was the previous Government—indeed, my right hon. Friend who is now the Leader of the Opposition—who took action and were willing to back the private sector owner to secure the future of steelmaking in Wales. That was what we did in Government.
We are talking about the issue of tariffs because it is intrinsically related to the Government and the taxpayer taking ownership of one participant in a complex industry supply chain. I know that on the Government Benches, some of the truths that we share today may not be immediately popular, but past Governments failed because they were happy to do what was popular in the moment, without looking at the long-term consequences. The truth is that we should not be nationalising British Steel, and certainly not with the Bill in this form—my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East made the point about the sweeping nature of the clauses, whatever we think about the Secretary of State’s intentions.
We have demonstrated in the past, and we will again, that there are other options, such as partnering with the private sector and negotiating a better deal. The Conservatives would fix the cause, not the symptoms; we would save steelmaking in this country not through state quick fixes, but by fixing the state itself. We would not pit industries against each other, as Labour is now doing, and we would not sit idly by for a rerun of the 1970s horror show that Labour made Britain sit through the last time around.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With a six-minute time limit, I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I will be very quick, because I know that colleagues are keen to get in. I am going to speak against the amendment and in support of the Bill for the simple reason that a speech such as the one we have just heard from the shadow Minister may have just about cut the mustard five or six years ago, but it certainly does not work today in a world of weaponised interdependence. It does not work in a world where President Trump is back in the White House or where President Xi is prosecuting the sixth five-year plan, as he is. The critical point in this debate, which the Secretary of State made very well, is that we must have a sovereign capability to make steel. In today’s world, we cannot afford to have a critical steelmaker like British Steel in the hands of a Chinese firm; we cannot, as Ronald Reagan once said, be innocents abroad in a world that is frankly no longer innocent.
Regardless of those remarks, there are a couple of areas where I think the shadow Minister made some important points. I want to stress that although the Secretary of State is proposing some perhaps welcome statism, he must not forget the statecraft that is needed to make a success of this Bill. There are six areas I would like him to respond to very briefly, and I hope we will be able to strike a cross-party consensus around them.
First, it is important that the Secretary of State wills the means and not simply the ends. We have, as the shadow Minister said, already spent a lot of money on this. The transition to electric arc furnaces that the Secretary of State is proposing is not cheap—it is extremely expensive. I think we are hoping that a lot of that money will come from the National Wealth Fund, but he does not control the National Wealth Fund or the allocations that it makes. The National Wealth Fund has not said anything about guaranteeing money for the kinds of ends that the Secretary of State has in mind, and the Government have declined to explain what will happen if steel projects are not funded by the National Wealth Fund. We therefore need a bit more clarity about where the investment resources for the Secretary of State’s plans are going to come from.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is unlikely that the National Wealth Fund, or indeed anyone else, would wish to invest in British steelmaking while our electricity prices are so very high? Does he agree that there is no point in this Bill until we fix the electricity market in this country?
Liam Byrne
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point that I am about to come on to. My point, I suppose, is that there is a case for this Bill. I think it is actually quite important, and the powers that it confers are also important, but if we are to get value for money from it, there have to be five other components, which I will come on to now.
The second area is lower energy costs. The British industrial competitiveness scheme is welcome, but it does not come online until 2027. Steelmakers, like much of our manufacturing industry, are saying very clearly to the Business and Trade Committee that there is a widening gap between UK wholesale electricity prices and the prices of our peers in the wake of the Iran crisis. My question to the Minister is: what further targeted support will be available to energy-intensive industries before 2027? As the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) rightly points out, that is an essential component of the package.
The third area that the shadow Minister was right to highlight is the issue of tariffs. This is now an urgent issue. The Committee heard evidence this afternoon at our own roundtable about the need to refine the tariff structures that have been put in place. The key thing is that we get a better deal with the European Union, to which we export 80% of our steel. It is about to cut tariff-free quotas by 47%, double tariffs from 25% to 50%, and impose melt and pour requirements. Unless we can get a deal in place with the European Union before the end of July, I am afraid that many of the good intentions behind this Bill will be confounded.
The fourth area is procurement. We must ensure that there is a proper demand curve from the UK state for the things that British Steel makes. In the British economy, British state procurement makes up £1 in every £6. Right now, despite the excellent changes in the Procurement Act 2023, we do not have a sufficiently clear forward pipeline. That has to change, not least because when we talk to defence companies—which are, of course, patiently awaiting the defence investment plan—and defence contractors, they still tell us that the kind of steel that they need to make the things that keep this country safe are not made in this country. Ensuring that there are advanced market commitments alongside the defence equipment plan, along with the range of other big, long-term ambitions that I know the Secretary of State has, is very important.
The penultimate area I want to touch on is scrap supply. The Secretary of State has ultimately come to the conclusion—wisely, I suspect—that we should shift to electric arc furnaces, but that kind of industry model will work only if there is a healthy supply of scrap. I think that Ministers are being just a tiny bit too complacent about whether we have the plans in place to source all that scrap. I know that there is a roundtable proposed for later this month, but as part and parcel of ensuring that the steel strategy actually works, can we have, at the very least, a read-out for Parliament about what scrap supplies will be kept in our country, rather than exported?
The final point I wanted to flag is about consolidation. One of the virtues of this Bill is that it bestows on the Secretary of State the power to ensure that there is consolidation in the UK steel industry for the future needs of the economy. In particular, it should allow us to take assets that have gone to firms that are currently out of business, and to rationalise the industry in a way that makes sense. I would like to hear more about what the Secretary of State is proposing when it comes to consolidating the industry.
Ultimately, in the world that we are in, when there are so many visible hands in the global economy interfering with the free market in steel, we will have to have a stronger visible hand. That is what the Secretary of State is proposing through this Bill. There will be a lot more work to do in the Bill’s subsequent stages to satisfy the House that he has got right the statecraft package behind this measure of statism. I look forward to hearing some reassuring noises on that point when the Minister winds up.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Steelmaking is of vital strategic importance to the UK. We rely on steel for essential parts of our national infrastructure, including in defence, transport, clean energy generation, and advanced manufacturing. Steelmaking creates tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs across the country, helping to power our economy and boost our local communities.
However, for too long, our steel industry has been neglected. The last Conservative Government oversaw a string of near collapses and last-minute rescues. They scrapped the industrial strategy, which is so vital to our manufacturers, and erected new trade barriers, making it harder for our steel producers to do business with their biggest export market across the channel.
We have a duty to stand by this vital sector, especially as it navigates unprecedented challenges, including President Trump’s unfair steel tariffs, China’s anti-competitive state aid practices, and the transition to environmentally sustainable production methods. If we are going to foster a thriving steel industry, we cannot allow more producers to collapse and more jobs to be lost, and we cannot risk our last blast furnaces going cold.
The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome this legislation as a temporary, emergency and targeted step, aimed specifically at turning around British steel, before returning it to the private sector. It is in that spirit that British steel producers also support this measure. The Liberal Democrats are clear that our country needs a vibrant, privately run steel industry. In the long term, only private enterprise—not Government Ministers—can ensure that the sector powers forward. We will be closely scrutinising these measures, and indeed the Government’s broader steel strategy, to ensure that they move us in that direction. We need to move on from a patchwork of last-minute rescues to a long-term plan that will set the industry on a truly sustainable footing. Right from the get-go, we would have liked to see plans to find private co-investors who can help modernise the sites and create more jobs.
Putin’s barbaric war in Europe threatens our national security; Donald Trump’s reckless tariffs are undermining our economy; and the continuing conflict in the middle east threatens business supply chains. All those factors make the future of reliable domestic steel production more important than ever for whole swathes of our economy. That is why the Government should ensure that industries that rely on steel, such as defence, are represented and involved in decision making relating to this legislation. We need stronger action from the Government on improving trade with the EU, so that our steel exporters can benefit from easier access to their biggest market, and so that our manufacturers get easier and cheaper access to the materials they need. A new UK-EU customs union would be hugely beneficial in that respect.
Last but not least, we need more ambition on the use of UK-made steel in our domestic market. We welcome the Government’s target of boosting domestic production from 30% to 50% of UK steel demand, although there is no clear timeline for that, and we cannot help but note that the equivalent target in the EU is 75%. While we understand the difference between the two markets, we hope that the Government will keep the target under review in the light of uncertain supply chains, and will consider further incentives for the use of UK-made steel in private sector projects.
The Liberal Democrats know that nationalising steel producers is not the answer in the long term; I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government also view this as an interim rescue measure. What specific steps do Ministers plan to take to ensure that British Steel becomes investable for the private sector, should the legislation be triggered? As the Bill progresses through the House, the Liberal Democrats will be carefully scrutinising the use of secondary legislation, with the aim of maximising accountability. Many of the Bill’s measures will be implemented through secondary legislation subject to negative resolution procedures. I hope the Minister agrees that the affirmative procedure would offer more meaningful parliamentary engagement.
I urge the Government to ensure that there is proper transparency for Parliament about costs associated with the legislation. Clauses 53 and 54 set out the process for the valuation of relevant businesses and the calculation of any compensation that might be paid to previous owners. While we understand that valuations will depend on factors specific to each business, the Government should publish detailed information about the criteria taken into account, and must ensure that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise proposed valuations and compensation amounts. Have the Government considered granting powers to the Business and Trade Committee to scrutinise spending on these measures? Lastly, will the Minister update the House on whether and to what extent the Bill will affect employee pension schemes? What conversations have been had with the Pensions Regulator to that effect?
Looking at the broader state of the steel sector, from 1 July the Government’s new UK steel and trade measure will impose tariffs on imported steel. While we understand the need to bring in such protections temporarily, due to the disruption caused by US steel tariffs and cheap, subsidised Chinese exports, the measure will have a significant impact on manufacturers who depend on steel as a key business input. In Business and Trade questions this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) mentioned Dynamic Metals, a firm in her constituency that is facing about a £3 million bill to import the specialist steel grades it requires for its services. While I welcome the Government’s aim of encouraging domestic production and the purchase of steel from UK steel companies, some specific grades of steel are not domestically produced, so the Government are harming the purchasing power of UK businesses. Will the Government commit to re-examining the application of tariffs on certain grades of steel to ensure that they do not inadvertently damage domestic buyers?
The Bill’s measures are subject to a public interest test, but there are limited details about what that test will involve. Will the Government allow Parliament to scrutinise the criteria for the test, and publish a detailed report setting out why they believe they have been met? How will the Minister ensure that the aim of protecting the vital infrastructure and manufacturing sectors is balanced with sustainable energy commitments? Will he confirm that when compensation is calculated, Jingye will be financially responsible for any environmental damage caused? What consideration will be given to the affected workforce, and to ensuring that jobs and skills are protected?
The Government are right to take action to protect British steel, but nationalisation must be a temporary step, taken in order to rescue businesses before they are returned to the private sector. We are supportive of the Government’s pace and urgency of action to assist the steel industry, but we need more details on the longer-term vision. I would be grateful if the Minister gave, in his response, the reassurances that I have asked for. How will the Government ensure that the steel industry becomes investable for the private sector, following nationalisation? How will Parliament have oversight, once the powers in the Bill are triggered? How will Parliament be provided with transparency regarding the costs associated with nationalisation?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With a five-minute time limit, I call Jessica Morden.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Bill, which gives the Government new powers to intervene in the steel industry when doing so is in the public interest. I do so because I, alongside many other steel MPs over many years, have relentlessly made the point that the steel industry is of the utmost strategic importance to the country’s economy and security, and that we must do all that we can to protect and cherish it. While the focus of the legislation is the future of British Steel—I very much pay tribute to the efforts and fantastic advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin)—the Bill also sends a clear signal about the Government’s commitment to the industry and workers more widely.
As Ministers know, steel is important to my constituency, both at Tata’s Llanwern works and at 7 Steel. I know that the steel Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald)—met representatives from Llanwern this week. I also pay tribute to the steel unions —in particular, Community and GMB, which I am a member of—and Reg Gutteridge, the newly elected national chair of Community union, who I know will be an excellent advocate.
I completely understand that significant funding was necessary to help keep British Steel in Scunthorpe open, but it is really important that producers and steelworkers in Wales, at sites such as Llanwern, get their share of the Government’s billions of pounds of investment through the National Wealth Fund. It is also important that Ministers urge Tata to follow through on the future investments that it has talked about previously, including in Llanwern.
I really welcome the steel strategy; it is the first time we have had one. The Conservative party had 14 years to set one up and did not. We had a revolving door of steel Ministers, and I am afraid that the Conservatives’ woeful approach continues with their reasoned amendment today. Our approach is a real road map for the future. I welcome the new import quota and tariff levels to cut the amount of foreign-made steel that comes in, and to protect us from global oversupply. However, as others have mentioned, there are concerns at downstream plants that the import quotas for galvanised steel and hollow sections allow too much leniency for highly subsidised products from non-EU countries to come into the UK market and undercut manufacturers at sites such as Llanwern. Will the Minister look at that?
Ministers will be aware of the industry’s concern about the timing and design of the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism. I am keen to hear more about that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) said, we are doing great work on procurement, and it is a big part of the steel strategy, but I am aware from 7 Steel, which has proved over and over again that it can supply high-quality products for High Speed 2, that some contracts are still being made for foreign-made steel. Will the Minister please check that and raise it with HS2? Energy is always an issue, and our underlying costs are still far greater than those of our European rivals, so I join others in asking the Minister to look further at more targeted support.
Those are a few of my asks, but I very much welcome the Bill and the Government’s clear direction of travel on steel. I will end by acknowledging the deep industry expertise and knowledge that the steel Minister brings to the job. It is recognised in our plants, and it is hugely refreshing after the last Government.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I do not support this Bill, and I believe that the reasoned amendment is the right way forward. I will set out clearly the devastating impact that the Bill is about to have, in real time, in my constituency.
We have a great local business called Amodil. It is a British family-run business that started with a couple of people in 1976 in Cleobury Mortimer, South Shropshire. I recently went to Cleobury to meet Paul, Chris, Ben and the team, as well as Rob Cooper from the British Stainless Steel Association. The business was founded by Paul Slingsby, who at 75 still works in it today. It is the UK’s largest privately owned supplier and stockholder of stainless steel long products, with more than 1,200 customers—about 20% of the UK market.
The people who run Amodil know what they are on about, and they were completely blindsided by the announcement on tariffs. They had not been told, and none of their customers or suppliers, or the people they were involved with, knew anything about it, so they came straight to me. I have written to the Minister multiple times and had one response. He needs to sit down with the largest British business in this industry and have a serious conversation.
The big issue that Amodil faces is the tariffs on the stainless steel products it brings in that cannot be made in the UK in the required quantity or type. The Government want to protect the steel industry as an industry of vital strategic importance—I get that—and they want to protect jobs, but for the almost 1,000 jobs they will save, many thousands more will be lost, and I will say exactly where.
The UK cannot meet domestic market demand, and a huge gap will be created. Businesses such as Amodil will be forced to import, and tariffs will drive up costs by 50%. There is not the cash across the industry to absorb those extra costs without mass redundancies. The costs will be passed on, meaning that manufacturers’ costs will go up. What will happen then? The customer will buy the finished product from manufacturers overseas at a lower price, and those products are not subject to tariffs. That does not level the playing field for us.
The UK does not produce enough stainless steel of the right type or quality to meet demand. Amodil currently has 5,000 tonnes of stainless steel in stock, 2,000 tonnes of which cannot be, and is not, made in the UK. It could take up to 15 years to get some of the skills right. Large-diameter bars of a certain grade are not made in the UK and those bars are vital to key industries, such as aerospace, defence, pharmaceuticals, oil, automative, general engineering and many more. If the tariffs are put on these businesses—Amodil is the largest British business in the field in the UK and there are many others—they will be priced out of the industry. I really hope the Secretary of State can see the importance of this matter.
Peter Kyle
I will save the hon. Gentleman from driving home the point even more, because I understand the passion with which he speaks. With regard to Amodil, I will look into that company personally. The intention with the measures that I have brought in is to protect domestic production and the possibility of domestic production. It is not to prevent goods that we do not make here, and do not intend to have the capacity to make here, from suffering. If there is a specific issue, I will look into that, because I do not want negative impacts downstream when we do not have the capacity to produce here. The Trade Minister said earlier today that he would look into that as well. We, as a team, will look into these issues.
Stuart Anderson
I thank the Secretary of State for saying that. I will follow up personally with him and with Amodil to see if we can talk about a way forward. I said to Amodil, “I believe that this is an unintended consequence of what the Government are trying to do, and once I point this out clearly, there will be a way forward to look at it.” The long and the short of it— I will put my speech to one side—is that there is a certain size of rod that only the UK can make. I watched it at Amodil’s facility a few weeks ago. When it gets past that size, it is not made in this country, but it is needed by so many of those critical industries.
Looking at steel as a whole, this matter is just one part of the stainless steel industry. If the Secretary of State, or one of the Ministers, will sit with me and the team at Amodil, they will be able to see, within a matter of minutes, where the gap is and how to plug it. It is along the blanket grading for all the bars. I request a pause for, say, just six months—or if we can talk with Amodil in a matter of days—so we can sit down and look at this, because there is a massive knock-on impact that will seriously hurt the stainless steel industry, and one of the largest employers in my constituency will be massively hurt too.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I am setting a three-minute time limit, which will allow most Members to get in, but not all.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Bill and the action that the Government are taking to protect Britain’s steel industry. I congratulate the Minister for Industry on his sterling work to bring this legislation before the House. Steel manufacturing is a strategic national asset; it underpins our infrastructure, transport system, energy, security, defence capability and industrial future. It is too important to be left entirely to the private sector.
For many of us who represent industrial communities, this debate is deeply personal. On Teesside, iron and steel built towns, livelihoods and identities from the early 19th century onwards. Generations of skilled workers helped forge modern Britain with Teesside steel, and as Chris Rea said:
“The ships and bridges they were all delivered
From Sydney harbour to the Cisco bay”.
Over the decades, however, those industries were systematically weakened. The deindustrialisation of the 1980s and 1990s hollowed out communities across the north and across Britain. Then, in 2015, the Conservative Government allowed the Redcar steelworks to close, with devastating consequences for 3,000 workers, families and a further 6,000 in the wider Teesside economy. Whereas with ILVA’s Taranto plant the Italians intervened to save that, and the French did the same for Florange, the previous UK Government sat on their hands. The truth is that a different choice could have been made in Redcar, just as a different choice is being made now. The Government could have intervened back then to preserve strategy industrial capability.
The Bill signals something important: a Government once again willing to play an active role in shaping industry and growing the economy, and doing so pragmatically. It will create a framework for the state to step in when markets fail to protect industries of strategic national importance. It will allow intervention, including public ownership where necessary, when the loss of industrial capacity would damage the national interest. It is common sense: people understand that there are sectors in which the public interest must come before narrow private gain. We have already seen this Government adopt new models of public intervention elsewhere.
We need a serious strategy for reindustrialisation and growth. That means backing British business through a strong public procurement strategy and delivering a long-term pipeline of orders. If public money is funding railways, schools, hospitals and so on, then wherever possible the steel for those projects should be made here, in Britain, by British workers.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I start this contribution on a positive note for the steel industry. Last week I visited Kiernan Steel’s fabrication workshop in Llandrindod, Wales. Kiernan Steel is a tremendously successful Irish company that has brought much-needed jobs to Radnorshire, and its success shows how the rural economy can prosper if our businesses are encouraged and enabled to locate there. One thing there is no shortage of in mid-Wales is land, and if we make that land available to businesses that need it, they will create the jobs that our region and economy need.
The steel industry is critical to our wider economy—it is virtually impossible to build anything without steel. However, the steel industry requires a skilled workforce. I was encouraged by some of the Secretary of State’s comments about the skills shortages, because we have serious skills shortages. There are thousands of vacancies for welders alone, and their pay is shooting up as a result. Skills shortages throughout the steel industry are pushing up the price of building anything, particularly infrastructure. That is why the health of our steel industry matters. If we do not look after it, the costs for projects such as HS2 and the cost of delivering all the housing we need will continue to mount.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I was interested in the hon. Gentleman’s comment about the shortage of welders. Does he agree that the Government’s plan for construction colleges of excellence, including the one in Bury St Edmunds, will be crucial for the provision of welders?
David Chadwick
There are at least 6,000 vacancies for welders, so we absolutely need a lot more of them.
The skills shortages present opportunities to get future generations into well-paid and secure trades. Artificial intelligence cannot do welding yet, because it does not have any arms—yet. Our education system is not producing the skills that our economy needs, and our economy is suffering from that failure. Steel is strategic. It is part of our sovereign capability and part of British power. That is why steel matters.
As has been mentioned, the steel industry is affected by the geopolitical tensions that are so rampant across the world. Our steel industry has been hammered by the Chinese, who have flooded the international market with cheap Chinese steel and have run one of our biggest companies into the ground. China has wiped out our steel industry intentionally, yet today the Conservatives seem to be saying that they do not think the Government should do anything about it. Just yesterday they were complaining about our lack of defence readiness. Well, what do they think tanks and ships are made from?
Today, this Government ask Parliament to move heaven and earth to save steel in Scunthorpe. It is right to act—of course the Government should have the proposed powers—but people in Wales are asking one simple question today: where was this Bill in July 2024, when the blast furnaces at Port Talbot were switched off for the last time? When Welsh communities were crying out for help, Westminster shrugged its shoulders. That was despite Welsh Labour MPs and candidates, in the months prior to the general election, lining up in front of giant election posters that read, “Save our steel.” They said they had a £2.5 billion fund to spend on steel. Given that the Government have admitted to spending £1.3 million a day to keep the Scunthorpe plant going, how much of that fund is left to spend in Wales?
If protecting primary steel production is so important, why did they allow the biggest steelworks in Britain to be turned off? Welsh workers were told that nothing could be done. People in my constituency have lost their jobs because of this. When 2,800 jobs were wiped out in Port Talbot, there was no emergency Saturday sitting, no recall of Parliament, no emergency legislation and no sudden declaration that steel was a vital national—
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my northern Lincolnshire neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who is a long-time champion and campaigner for protecting and securing the future of Scunthorpe steelworks, which is essential to the fabric of the town and a critical part of its identity.
The Government are right to take the steps needed to bring British Steel back into public ownership. Having our own sovereign steelmaking capacity is crucial to ensuring the UK’s defence and infrastructure security. Jingye has failed as custodians of British Steel in Scunthorpe. It has the opportunity to do the decent thing and come to an agreement before the Government are forced to use the powers in this Bill, and we will wait to see whether it does that.
I know that the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), has a deep understanding of iron and steelmaking. I am sure he will agree that resolving the ownership issue for British Steel will allow an ambitious future for the business to be realised and a plan to be brought forward that will attract investment.
The UK management and workforce at British Steel have been working in an impossible situation while the Government have been negotiating with the current owners. I hope the current leadership will be empowered by the Government to make the necessary decisions to deliver the positive future for the business that the town deserves.
The trade unions Community, Unite and GMB have worked consistently hard to keep steelmaking in the UK. Could the Minister confirm that the action the Government are taking will enable both management and trade unions to deliver the positive future that everybody wants to see for steelmaking in the UK?
Scunthorpe is home to one of the last very large pieces of industrial land in the UK. The proper development of that land could benefit not just Scunthorpe and my constituency, but the whole of the UK. Can the Minister set out what plans he has to work with North Lincolnshire local authority and other partners to make the most of these opportunities? We do not want to see a first come, first served situation where the best users and custodians of that land are not given the opportunity to take it on. It has to be the right company, which will ensure that the proud history of manufacturing in northern Lincolnshire continues long into the future. Will the Minister confirm that that will be his approach?
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
It is exactly seven years since I started calling for British Steel at Scunthorpe to be taken into public ownership. The Conservatives rejected my splendid advice, and the chaos we have seen is a result of that. In opposing this Bill, they show that they do not care about the sovereign nature and importance of steelmaking, they do not care about the thousands of highly-skilled jobs, and they do not care about the communities and families around them—they have no understanding of its importance.
I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister for Industry on bringing forward this Bill—the first from the King’s Speech to be debated on Second Reading. I told the Secretary of State’s predecessor that he should show some cojones and get on with it, and I think that is what we are now seeing. Alongside this support from the Secretary of State, we now need to see the vision and the plan for the long term. I am concerned that there is an attitude of, “We’ll quietly let the blast furnaces go cold and disappear, and then replace them with electric arc furnaces.” We need a big, bold vision to renew, reline and rebuild at least one blast furnace.
Around the world, 50% of all new steelmaking capacity in the last five years has come from blast furnaces. It is the strongest, most robust primary steel. I know that the Minister of State is a great fan of direct reduced iron, and he has a point there; nevertheless, we should not expose ourselves by putting all our bets on electric arc furnaces, when we know that the price of electricity is at a crisis high. We need diversity in this, rather like when my late grandmother would look at the desserts available for Sunday lunch and say, “Grandson, have a little bit of each.” When it comes to steelmaking, let us have a little bit of each. Let us have a bit of primary steel and a little bit of electric arc furnace steel, to ensure that we always retain those skills and recognise the importance of our sovereign steelmaking capability.
I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will produce that vision and plan over the coming weeks, so that we can have confidence in those jobs and so that the communities can have confidence that steelmaking will be retained and invested in for the long term.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I represent a constituency built around steel and manufacturing that is now home to Tata Steel’s processing and distribution centre, the largest in the UK. In Wolverhampton and Willenhall, steel is our history and our identity. With the actions taken by this Government, I sincerely believe it will continue to be our future, too.
The Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill marks a serious and necessary step towards safeguarding the long-term future of the UK steel industry. It gives the Government the power to bring steel companies, including British Steel, into public ownership where it is in the public interest to do so. This is safeguarding Britain’s steel capability and capacity, which is firmly in the national interest, protecting jobs and our communities. That matters profoundly to places like mine. I am calling for British procurement as well, so that British-made steel is used to build our railways, infrastructure and wind turbines, so that national renewal runs through communities such as Wolverhampton North East, through the skills of our workers, the strength of our industries and a future based on good, secure jobs and apprenticeships.
I also sincerely believe that this decisive action would not have been taken under the previous Conservative Government. Since 2010, we have seen a litany of missed chances and, in my opinion, moral failures. That is why it is welcome that the Bill reflects the seriousness with which we should treat domestic steel production and the communities that depend on it. That certainty is being recognised by the industry. As UK Steel has said, it provides a vital reassurance for workers, customers and supply chains at a critical moment, recognising steel as a strategic national asset that is essential to economic growth, national security and resilience.
I also support the Government’s ambition to boost domestic production from 30% to 50%. However, I would ask the Minister to look at tariffs on imported steel, using evidence based on specific codes, and to engage with downstream firms that are concerned about the measures. In Wolverhampton and Willenhall, and across the Black Country, we understand what steel represents. We understand the value of secure, well-paid, skilled work. For our workers, our apprentices and our supply chains, and for the long-term strength of the United Kingdom, I support the Bill and commend it to the House.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
In March, the Government released their steel strategy, which talked about taking bold steps to help to grow the industry. The bold steps that we have before us include granting powers to nationalise the industry and introducing a 50% tariff in six weeks’ time on the import of steel products that can also be made in the UK—I come back to this because it is a really important point. Protecting British Steel does sound admirable, and I completely understand it, but the decision has been made without consultation with the industry.
If the Government had consulted with the industry, I would not have had to meet with my constituent Alex Bailey last week, who felt absolute desperation about the future prospects of his business, which employs 70 people and has a £35 million turnover. He owns Dynamic Metals, one of the UK’s largest independent stockists of aerospace high-grade metals, which are specialist steels tested to high standards to be suitable for use in aircraft. The issue that he faces deals with three product types—12A, 14 and 27—but I will spare hon. Members with further details.
The Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty's Household (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
I would like to know more.
Sarah Bool
I will be sure to write to the Minister with more details.
First, none of this steel can realistically be made in the UK. The Government have provided a list of potential suppliers, but the majority, including British Steel, only make commercial not aerospace-grade steel, and the only company that might, Speciality Steel UK, is currently in liquidation.
Secondly, as Alex explained to me, the drafting of the legislation is such that there is no way customs will be able to differentiate between a generic steel and a specialist steel as they use the same harmonised system codes upon import. That needs to be revisited.
Thirdly, the quota has been set far too low. Product 12A is subject to a 31% reduction in the quota allowance and now a tiny quota will be introduced for products 14 and 27, where there was no quota before. All in all, to be able to meet his order book requirements, Alex has no option but to incur the tariffs. The additional burden that he will have to pick up on 1 July amounts to £3.2 million. He will be bankrupt within six months if this measure goes ahead. As we have heard, he is not alone, because hundreds of businesses are in the same position. As Alex said:
“This is a classic example of legislation that has been written with noble intentions—to save the UK steel industry—but due to a lack of consultation with industry, lack of industry knowledge by the authors and a total misunderstanding of the knock-on effects, this single piece of legislation will kill stockholding and manufacturing in the UK.”
When the Secretary of State is looking into the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), will he also meet with Dynamic Metals? Without prompt action now, the Government will run into much more significant issues down the line come 1 July.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Government’s decision to move towards the nationalisation of British Steel. It is the right decision for our economy, our industrial communities and Britain’s national security. I say that as somebody who believes in the value of enterprise, competition and a strong private sector, but there are clear cases where privatisation has failed the national interest and where Government have not only the right to intervene but the duty to do so, particularly where foundational industries are now foreign-owned. I was stunned that when the shadow Minister was asked a straight question about whether the Conservatives would prefer British steel to be in the hands of the Chinese or the British, he could not simply answer “the British”. He avoided the question. That shows a staggering disregard for our country’s national security.
Steel is not just another commodity—it is fundamental to our national sovereignty. It underpins our defence industry, infrastructure, energy sector and manufacturing base. A nation that cannot produce its own steel leaves itself vulnerable, dependent on the decisions, priorities and interests of others. We have moved into a different era, although if we listened to some of the contributions from Opposition Members, we could believe that we are still in the 1990s. Globalisation is dead and, to be honest, I welcome its death, because all it ever did was leave working-class communities such as mine behind, ripping out the heart of industrial communities like Hartlepool.
The tragedy is that in this country we still import 68% of our steel needs. We must fix that tragedy. If British taxpayer money is to be spent, then British industry must benefit. If we are building British warships, British steel should be used. If Britain is building offshore wind farms, then British steel should be used. If we are building new nuclear reactors, as we are in Hartlepool thanks to the deal that we struck last September, then British steel should be used. My biggest plea to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench is that we radically reform procurement policy in this country.
I welcome the steel tariffs being put in place and the assurances given by the Secretary of State that he will look carefully at the individual cases that have been mentioned, but we must put our country first. This Bill is critical to doing that and to protecting the working-class communities I represent.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It probably will not come as a surprise to Labour Members, but I fundamentally disagree with the last speaker, although I appreciated his passion. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is getting a bit excited; I will come to him in a minute on the issue of tariffs. I am proud that we are the only party in this House objecting to the Bill, and for the right reasons.
The Secretary of State repeatedly talks about making this country stronger, but I do not think this Bill does that by nationalising. I just do not think that Governments can run businesses. I certainly mean no disrespect to Ministers on the Front Bench, but they will create inefficiencies and push up prices, and the taxpayer will end up stomaching the cost. That does not make us stronger; it makes us weaker.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), who spoke before me, said that we are still in the 1990s, but I think this Government are taking us back to the 1970s by pushing up costs and lumbering the taxpayer. A future Conservative Government will have to unwind some of the real harm that will come to fruition. No Labour Members can tell us where the nationalisation will stop. Will it be ceramics tomorrow? What will happen? Which industries will the Government pick and choose?
In the limited time that I have, let me come on to the issue of tariffs. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and all my hon. Friends who have raised this point, I have been visited by a constituent. His name was Peter Watson, of Davicon. I have written to the Secretary of State about this issue, although that was only last week; I respect the fact that he may not have had time to come back to me, but I hope he does.
Davicon is the UK’s leading mezzanine manufacturer. The briefing that Peter put in front of me was a result of the tariffs and the quota reduction. There is a reduction of almost 97% on merchant bars and an increase in quotas of 50%. For all the Secretary of State’s best intentions and whatever he wants to achieve, the reality is that industry and markets do not work to the whims of Government. They will not move quickly enough to do that, which will push up prices. In the briefing I saw, that would mean a doubling of the quota for per-tonnage steel by 1 July. That cost will have to be borne by industry and taxpayers. If we are talking about nuclear power plant creation or HS2, we know that those taxpayer-funded projects will have to bear those costs.
I was listening to the Prime Minister yesterday during Prime Minister’s questions, and it is clear the Government recognise that an issue is coming down the tracks. I argue that that should have been anticipated before the tariffs came into place, but we are where we are. I have written to the Secretary of State, and I would really welcome some serious action on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) made a really eloquent argument about a delay in the introduction. If that is not going to happen—
Saqib Bhatti
The Secretary of State is shaking his head. If that is not going to happen, let us look at the HS codes. He needs to recognise that there will be a serious impact on the steel industry and the peripheral industries that rely on steel manufacturing in this country.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Steel is to the UK what Yorkshire tea and Yorkshire puds are to God’s own county, what the hotpot is to Lancashire and what black cabs are to London. It is to the UK what the St Leger is to Doncaster and what the hood is to Haxey. It is about us. It is about what makes us and drives us. It is about pride.
British Steel is at the heart of the UK’s industrial heritage. It was the backbone of the industrial revolution, driving global infrastructure and enabling military pre-eminence. It was key to our rail, maritime, defence and major capital infrastructure. Someone said to me this week, “There is history that has been made, but, more importantly, there is history that we can still make.” We need to make it right here, right now, with British Steel.
The future of British Steel matters not only to my neighbouring area of Scunthorpe, but to communities across north Lincolnshire, South Yorkshire and beyond, including people in my own constituency, some of whom work at Scunthorpe and all of whom are deeply affected by the fortunes of a major local industry. The steelworkers at Scunthorpe are doing work that is essential to this country. It is highly skilled, technical and sometimes dangerous work. They deserve respect for what they do, and they deserve certainty about the future of the industry that they have helped to sustain. That is why the Bill before the House is so important.
While my interest is local, the issue is absolutely national. By nationalising steel, we can ensure that the UK does not become the only G7 country incapable of producing its own primary steel, and stop reliance on foreign imports. This is not about nostalgia for the past or keeping an industry going just for sentimental reasons; it is about recognising that steel is a strategic national asset.
If Britain is to build the homes, railways, energy infrastructure and defence capability that we need, Britain needs steel. If we are serious about industrial resilience, national security and economic growth, we cannot be indifferent about whether we retain the capacity to make steel here at home. The steelworks at Scunthorpe are not just another private asset on a balance sheet; they are a vital part of our industrial base. Once that capacity is lost, it is not easily rebuilt. Once those skills are gone, they are not easily recovered.
The Government are right to bring forward legislation that gives the Secretary of State the powers needed to act where the public interest requires it.
Public ownership should never be treated lightly, but nor should it be ruled out when a vital national industry is at risk. The test here is straightforward: does Britain need steel? Yes. Does Britain need the skills and capacity represented at Scunthorpe? Yes. Would it be in the national interest to allow that capacity to disappear? No. That is why intervention is justified. For the workers at Scunthorpe, for the communities in my constituency that depend on those jobs and for the future strength and resilience of our country, the Bill deserves the support of this House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
This has been an interesting debate, because it has brought out the strategic love of nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation among Government Members. With our reasoned amendment we have tried to put out a different approach. We also heard clearly from Reform that it is in favour of nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation. This Bill will satisfy neither our camp nor their camp. With this Bill, we have a chaotic, unplanned, non-strategic journey that will end up burning through taxpayers’ money at every stage. We can see that the decisions that the Government have taken since they came to power have delivered the worst of all possible worlds for this crucial industry.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I promised Madam Deputy Speaker that, in the interests of time, I would not take any interventions. This Bill is an emergency intervention with mounting public costs that have no clear limits for the taxpayer. This legislation will certainly not put things on a secure footing.
We were told this time last year, when we were brought in on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands war, that nationalisation was not the plan. The Prime Minister went to China with the Secretary of State and failed to secure a deal for British Steel, so we have this Bill. It does not resolve any underlying issues. Instead, it just opens the door to an indefinite and infinite bill for the taxpayer, and that is not all. It has a sunset clause that, would the House believe it, can be extended indefinitely.
There are far too many unchecked powers in this Bill. It does not address, as the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee mentioned, that Britain has the highest energy prices in the developed world. We cannot have an industrial policy for steel unless there is an energy policy for industry. In addition to the Chair of the Select Committee, we had an interesting speech from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). She spoke about how we could turn this Bill into temporary, emergency legislation and about the path to returning British Steel to the private sector.
We also had powerful interventions from Opposition Members, including from my hon. Friends the Members for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti). They spoke up for the businesses in their constituencies that will be so badly affected by the inflationary 50% tariff on imported steel as of 1 June.
This afternoon is a chance for the Minister to answer some questions. Why were the Government unable to strike a deal with the Chinese owners? When exactly did the Government decide that nationalisation was the right path? Did they decide that before the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 was introduced? If so, why was the House not told that at the time? Why should the taxpayer be the one who foots this bill? How is this value for money for the taxpayer? Do we even know what the total cost to the taxpayer will be from these ongoing losses, the capital investment and the enormous liabilities? This Bill commits the taxpayer to ownership of an asset that loses hundreds of millions of pounds each year. What assessment has the Minister made of the chilling impact that the measures in this Bill will have on other inward investors into the United Kingdom, and what is his exit strategy, if he has one?
If the Government propose to nationalise a steel company on the basis that it meets the public interest test, can the Minister explain how the same asset could ever be returned to private ownership without contradicting their own public interest assessment that it is in the national interest? Or is the reality that once the threshold is crossed, the British taxpayer is locked into permanently underwriting a loss-making asset, with no timetable for it to return?
Why is there no requirement in this Bill for a proper impact or value-for-money assessment before the Secretary of State exercises the powers? Why have the Government not taken us up on our cheap power plan, which addresses one of the root causes of this sector’s difficulties? Can the Minister—I think I heard him say it from a sedentary position, but I would like to hear him say it again—urgently commit to look at the impact of the 50% steel tariffs on our steel manufacturing sector?
This House should not be required to sign a blank cheque. We cannot and will not support legislation that appears to be nationalisation in search of a rationale. I urge all colleagues to support our reasoned amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
As I was preparing for today’s debate, it struck me that 60 years ago this summer, this House was debating steel nationalisation and the England team went on to win the world cup. We are back here discussing steel nationalisation again, so I have high hopes for the summer.
Sometimes it is informative to learn from the past. Going back to the steel nationalisation of 1966, the Minister of Power opened the debate and said that
“there is no manufacturing industry of such basic importance to the British economy.”—[Official Report, 25 July 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1224.]
Of course, he was right then, and it is true now. However, the steel industry is so good that we have not nationalised it twice; we have nationalised it thrice, because the steel industry was also partly nationalised in 1948. The Minister of Supply said:
“Without steel the life of Britain would collapse.”—[Official Report, 15 November 1948; Vol. 458, c. 53.]
That is absolutely true, as we have heard from Members of the House today.
As the Minister for Industry, part of my mission is to increase the productive capacity of our industry. What we have seen in the steel industry, particularly during 14 years of the Tories, is productive decline. They presided over the loss of great steel plants and a reduction in the productive capacity of those steel plants. The thing is, the decline in market share—from 80% to 30%—was not inevitable. It was a choice born out of inaction and out of a lack of industrial policy.
The reason that this Bill is so important is exactly the same as the reason it was important in 1966: there has been a great technological shift in the industry. Back then, it was continuous casting; now, it is electric arc furnaces. The industry has been de-capitalised by years of under-investment, and it needs to be re-capitalised. Productivity fell off a cliff under the previous Government. It fell repeatedly following the closure of the Redcar blast furnace, and productivity must be improved. These are not the words of someone who is wedded to a socialist principle of nationalisation. They are the words of someone who has spent his life in the steel industry, who ran a business in the steel industry, and who is dedicated to improving productivity in our industry.
I heard the words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), when he opened the debate, and I was quite disappointed. He and I met earlier this week, and my colleagues sitting behind me might be surprised to learn that he was thoughtful and probing in the questions that he asked me. He made some really interesting points, and we had a good discussion. I thought about his points afterwards, and I found it really interesting that he had thought about the things that we will have to bear in mind when we pass this legislation. But what has he done? He has fallen into the Conservatives’ usual trap of presenting this as an ideological debate, instead of a debate about the function of an industry that is vital to this country. That is how they have prosecuted this debate.
I learned something when I was working in the industry. Two years ago, I was running a business in the steel industry. Twenty years ago, I was working at the Scunthorpe steelworks. More than 30 years ago—the House will not believe it—I left school and got a job in the steel industry. There were a lot of changes over that time. Sometimes I stayed in the same job, but the company and the badge on my hard hat changed. When it changed from British Steel to Corus, that was a big blow to how people felt about it, but I will tell the House one thing that I recognised: ownership matters, and it makes a difference. Strategy matters, and it matters where the head office of a business is. People care about the area where they work, and those things are important. The workers care, communities care and we care, but the Conservatives do not care—that is quite clear to me.
Andrew Griffith
I will be very brief. I thank the Minister for his remarks. One ideological difference he has not mentioned once is the huge gulf between those on our side and his party on energy, and the Government are not going to have a sustainable steel industry due to energy.
Chris McDonald
Yes, the hon. Member is right. There is a gulf there: the Conservatives were in favour of some of the highest industrial energy prices in the world. We have delivered an increase in the supercharger benefit from 60% to 90% and introduced the British industrial competitiveness scheme. Through our investments in chemicals, ceramics and, of course, steel, we are supporting British industry with its operating costs on energy and its capital costs to improve its productivity as well.
In steel communities, they are proud people. They are people who can stand on their own two feet, and they want to; they do not want subsidies. They have pride and they have dignity in their work, and when I went to the Corby steelworks recently, I saw the sacrifice of individuals and communities with their hard and dangerous labour.
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
The Minister knows the sacrifices that have been made by my constituents at Dalzell plate mill in Motherwell. Will he confirm that this plate mill remains at the heart of the UK steel strategy, and that the Bill we have debated today provides a potential safety net for the future of Dalzell?
Chris McDonald
While the Government are minded to nationalise British Steel, we do not have any other nationalisations in mind. However, we do recognise the importance of the Dalzell plate mill, and I am concerned to ensure that it gets back up and running, and delivers its steel ship plate orders. I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she has been doing in championing that.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball)—she is sitting behind me—who has supported me throughout the preparation of this Bill, but cannot speak because of her position in the House. Likewise, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who is also supporting the passage of this Bill, but again cannot speak because of his position. I also thank the Chief Whip, who of course did so much work in advance of this Bill coming forward.
Let me give at least one or two minutes to the amendment. Fundamentally, there is a contradiction in the Opposition’s position in that, if we do not pass this Bill, British Steel is trapped in the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act. The Conservatives supported that legislation, so they do not want to allow British Steel to break out of that. However, I would point out to Conservative Members—and certainly those who feel that the Bill gives too many powers to the Secretary of State—that this Bill has been modelled on the Banking Act. At the time the Banking Act was being passed, a fellow sitting on the Opposition Front Bench called George Osborne—I understand he is popular in Tory circles—said, “I will do everything I can to help this Bill on to the statute book.” I think what we are hearing is that that is good enough for the bankers, but it is not good enough for the steelworkers.
To move on, I am as concerned as the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), to get in private sector investment. We have carried out a very careful balance with this Bill to ensure that the steel industry is fully informed, understands our intentions and is supportive—and it is supportive. Just in the last couple of weeks, 7 Steel has announced a £100 million private sector investment in the steel industry in the UK, so there is no chilling effect from this. In fact, this will be a spur to, or a boost for, private sector investment.
Let me mention some of the speeches. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee mentioned a number of things, but I think he was the only person to raise scrap. We have launched a scrap working group, which will be dealing with that issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) rightly raised the importance of the Llanwern steel plant, and she mentioned import penetration in relation to rebar. My near constituency neighbours, my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), could not have been clearer about how the Tories abandoned the steel communities in Teesside and the difference that this Labour Government are making.
A number of Opposition Members mentioned tariffs. There are no tariffs in this Bill. However, as we heard from the Trade Minister at the Dispatch Box this morning and from the Secretary of State this afternoon, there is an open door for companies to come in and discuss those issues.
Finally, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I have had many exchanges about steel. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we do not agree, but we always have a good discussion. He raised the importance of DRI blast furnaces as well as electric arc furnaces, and he and I will certainly have the opportunity to discuss that much further.
I think it is quite clear that the British Government are not and should not be neutral when it comes to British business, and we are on the side of business. We are unashamedly on the side of British business, and we are unashamedly on the side of the steel industry and steel communities. That is the difference between us and the Opposition, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
First day | |
Clauses 1 to 51; new Clauses relating to Part 1; new Schedules relating to Part 1. | The moment of interruption on the first day. |
Second day | |
Clauses 52 to 57; new Clauses relating to Part 2; new Schedules relating to Part 2; Clauses 58 to 60; new Clauses relating to Part 3; new Schedules relating to Part 3; Clauses 61 to 64; new Clauses relating to Part 4; new Schedules relating to Part 4; remaining proceedings in Committee on the Bill. | One hour before the moment of interruption on the second day. |
Business without Debate
Imprisonment of Craig and Lindsay Foreman in Iran
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Just over 500 days ago, Lindsay and Craig Foreman, the mother and stepfather of one of my constituents, were on the trip of a lifetime: a motorcycle journey across the world. During their travels, Lindsay, who is a positive psychologist and life coach, planned to research along the way the elements of what makes a good life. She wanted to ask people in all the different countries they travelled through what happiness, fulfilment and purpose meant to them.
In January 2025, they entered Iran with visas and with an approved tour company. The Iranian authorities claimed that, simply by speaking to people about what makes a good life, the Foremans were conducting espionage and attempting to overthrow the Iranian regime—a totally baseless and utterly absurd allegation. The obvious truth was that they were innocent tourists.
The Foremans were arrested in Iran in January 2025 and later convicted of espionage in a trial that fell well short of international standards. In February this year they were sentenced to 10 years in prison. Their case was heard by the notorious revolutionary court, and by an Iranian judge who has himself been sanctioned by the UK, the US and the EU. That judge relied on so-called confessions of Lindsay and Craig that resulted from Lindsay being forced to sign documents in Farsi without interpretation and to fingerprint blank pieces of paper. Those documents were obtained after the Foremans being subjected to severe psychological pressure and inhuman treatment.
That treatment has included solitary confinement for 56 days without justification, and while in solitary confinement Lindsay was interrogated for 30 consecutive days and Craig for 14 days. They were blindfolded to, from and during those interrogations. Craig was walked into walls deliberately. Aggressive questioning was used, with language designed to cause maximum psychological distress.
For all of the interrogations, Craig and Lindsay had no legal representation at all, despite repeatedly requesting a lawyer. There were countless other due process violations —not seeing evidence, false evidence, not having the opportunity to challenge evidence, and being taken into court without any warning—and UK officials were not even permitted to attend this so-called trial.
Since August and October last year respectively, Craig and Lindsay have been held in extremely harsh conditions in Evin prison, which is widely regarded as one of the most notorious prisons in Iran.
I would like to put on record my sincere thanks, on behalf of my constituent Joe Bennett, who sits bravely in the Public Gallery, and the whole Foreman family, for the welfare support given by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Minister and the Foreign Secretary to Lindsay and Craig and their family. I thank them for everything that they are doing in very difficult diplomatic circumstances. I also welcome the Government’s acceptance that the Foremans are simply innocent tourists whose convictions and sentences are unjustifiable and appalling.
However, Craig and Lindsay’s family would like the British Government to go further and to act with more urgency.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
My hon. and learned Friend is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents. On the point of monitoring the welfare and health of the Foremans, with diplomatic relations as they are at the moment, does he agree that we must implore the Minister to use all channels and actions possible to check on their welfare?
Tony Vaughan
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Craig and Lindsay are currently undertaking a hunger strike, which is essentially the only way they feel that they can protest against their treatment, after their phone cards were taken away and they were denied contact with their family. I will discuss their welfare later in my speech, but I agree that the Government need to explain what measures they are taking to monitor their health in these very difficult circumstances, including, if necessary, by using third-party allies.
Ultimately, I want to set out four things that the family are calling for, on which I would be grateful for the Minister’s views. First, the British Government should say loudly and clearly that Lindsay and Craig are not spies, and that their detention is politically motivated and arbitrary in international law. I say that because this case follows a well-documented line of cases where Iran has taken innocent British citizens and those of other nations as bargaining chips for their own purposes. If the Government accept that Lindsay and Craig are innocent and are not spies, and that the trial that they were subjected to in Iran was grossly unfair and provides no basis at all for their detentions, they must have a view about why the Iranians are doing this.
My constituent Joe does not believe that it is in Craig and Lindsay’s interest to shy away from calling a spade a spade here. These are obviously trumped-up false charges from a kangaroo court that Iran is pursuing for its own ends. In other words, Craig and Lindsay Foreman are hostages, they are being held for political purposes, and we should be prepared to say so openly and to calibrate our response accordingly.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
The hon. and learned Gentleman is making absolutely the right points. So far the Government have limited themselves to saying that Craig and Lindsay were innocent tourists, but they have not said categorically that they are not spies, despite promising to do so. They have also refused to say that they are being arbitrarily detained. We are dealing with a terrorist state. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is no reason for the Government to hold back in their rhetoric? Iran is a terrorist state with a record of holding people hostage for political leverage. If we are not willing to do so in this situation, when would we ever do so when it comes to allies, or those who purport to be our friends, holding British citizens hostage?
Tony Vaughan
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is right that we need to call a spade a spade here. There is no basis for these convictions and no basis for this detention—that is the hallmark of an arbitrary detention in international law. If we can accept that, we can move to the next stage to take the appropriate measures to deal with this very serious abuse of British citizens in Iran.
A number of our international partners have not shied away from such clear language. For example, France and Australia have explicitly rejected the espionage convictions of their nationals in Iran in similar situations as baseless and politically motivated. They have described those detentions of their nationals as arbitrary detention, and have used such language not to close down diplomacy, but to strengthen it. My constituent Joe and his family ask: why should the British Government be more cautious about the truth than others have been in similar situations?
Secondly, what consideration has been given to providing diplomatic protection to Lindsay and Craig Foreman? That is an established way of converting an individual grievance into an interstate dispute. Craig and Lindsay are our citizens, so the Government must do all they can to protect them. That should include, at the very least, a serious and transparent assessment of whether conferring diplomatic protection on them would enhance our ability to bring them home. If not, why not?
Thirdly, what consideration has been given to how the International Court of Justice mechanism and other international legal forums could be used by the UK to exert pressure on Iran? The ICJ is where the UK could argue that politically motivated arbitrary detentions of our nationals do breach international legal obligations; France has done exactly that with its nationals. What is the Government’s view about that mechanism in the Foremans’ case? Does the Ministers accept in principle that the pattern of conduct is not just unjustifiable, but arbitrary and unlawful under international law?
Fourthly—this is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan)—given that Craig is in the 13th day of his hunger strike and Lindsay is on her fourth, will the Minister assure the family that appropriate steps are being taken to monitor their health in prison, including, if necessary, with the assistance of an ally?
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on securing the debate and thank him for the cross-party nature of his approach. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group on arbitrary detention and hostage affairs for its work on the concerning case of Craig and Lindsay Foreman.
This is a crucial moment for the UK Government and hon. Members in the Chamber to ascertain whether the support given to Craig and Lindsay is satisfactory. The tourists Craig and Lindsay were formerly my constituents. Joe and the family are living in deeply challenging times, and they want to know that that welfare and protection is roundly being given.
Tony Vaughan
The hon. Member is absolutely right. Contributions in this Chamber and the response to the early-day motion that I tabled some months ago— I think around 70 parliamentarians signed it, which is a good number, given that many people do not sign such motions—show that there is cross-party support for more robust action in the case of the Foremans, and I will continue with colleagues, in this Chamber and outside it, to press for that.
Over 500 days into this terrible nightmare, Lindsay and Craig, my constituent Joe Bennett and their family are desperately in need of hope. They see the French bring home their nationals from Iran, as Australia did—and as the UK eventually did in the cases of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori. I thank Richard Ratcliffe, who is in the Gallery and has been a source of great support to the family at this very difficult time, in spite of his own and Nazanin’s terrible ordeal. France and Australia have explicitly rejected espionage convictions as baseless and politically motivated, and Joe wants to understand why the UK cannot take a similar approach in relation to his parents.
The family are not asking for miracles; they are asking for clarity of language, for maximum use of the legal and diplomatic tools available to our country, and for an approach that treats Craig and Lindsay appropriately: as innocent British citizens who have been taken from their usual lives and their families, and must urgently be brought home.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), both for securing the debate and for his support for Craig, Lindsay and their family. I acknowledge the family’s presence, and join my hon. and learned Friend in recognising their remarkable determination; they have shown great courage in truly difficult circumstances.
This is a truly terrible case, and my thoughts are with the couple and their family at this incredibly difficult time. The Foreign Secretary and I are doing all we can to support them, and to press for Craig and Lindsay’s release. I am grateful for the thoughtful contributions of Members on both sides of the House, and will do my best to respond to the points that have been raised.
The couple have been detained in Iran since January last year, and are being held in Evin Prison in Tehran. Recent developments have only added to the family’s distress. I spoke with Joe, who is with us today, and with Warren, Craig’s brother, on Monday. They told me that telephone contact between the couple and their family ceased almost two weeks ago, and that there are serious concerns for their health, now that they have both begun a hunger strike. My hon. and learned Friend asked whether I can provide an assurance that they are having adequate health monitoring. I cannot provide that assurance. The consular officials have not had access to the couple in some time, but we continue to press for that assurance and for access, very regularly, and I was discussing this matter with our ambassador to Iran just earlier today.
Alicia Kearns
I thank the Minister for saying that he is pressing on the matter, and that he has been talking to our ambassador, but can he tell the House when he last spoke to his Iranian counterpart, and how many times in the past three months he has raised the case with his Iranian counterpart? With all due respect, getting the couple home requires Government-to-Government negotiation.
Mr Falconer
I raised the case with the Iranian ambassador very recently—whenever I last saw him—and I have raised it in every single interaction I have had with him, but I reassure the hon. Lady that, as she knows, our ambassador to Tehran is a fully empowered representative of the British Government, and talks to the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the consular issues very regularly, to ensure that they are raised. This case has been raised at every single level, not just by me but by the Foreign Secretary with the Iranian Foreign Minister within the past fortnight, so there is no doubt in the Iranian Government’s mind about how seriously we take it.
Supporting British nationals overseas is of course a fundamental part of what we do, and we have been seeking to support Craig, Lindsay and their family throughout. I think my meeting on Monday was my seventh with the Foreman family, and the Foreign Secretary has met them twice. We will continue to provide consular assistance, and officials remain in close and very regular contact with Warren and Joe, to ensure that the family are kept informed and supported. We want to ensure that their concerns are understood and reflected in our approach. As I said to Joe and Warren earlier this week, I remain available to speak with them at any time. As I just said, we have repeatedly and consistently raised Craig and Lindsay’s case with the Iranian authorities at every appropriate level.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
This House has heard, sadly, the comments that the Minister has made about the Government pressing this case. He will know that it was pressure from this House, and from the families, that caused the release of the other hostages in Iran. Will he undertake, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) suggested, to contact his counterpart at the end of this debate and ensure that the family get proper access to Craig and Lindsay Foreman? We will repeat their names in this House until they are released.
Mr Falconer
As I just said, we have and we will continue to raise this as regularly as possible with the Iranian authorities, both on some of the consular grounds that have been discussed, and in respect of the wider elements of the case. As the House knows, I cover many very difficult consular cases, and we have discussed others in this Chamber. It is not always public pressure that is most effective in securing releases. We have seen a range of releases across my wider area of responsibility during my time as Minister. Those releases are effected in a wide variety of ways, so I will always give families, and their constituency MPs when they are authorised to speak on their behalf, my best advice. It will not always be the case that public pressure is the best way to secure releases. I regret to say that the Iranian authorities appear to use detentions as a way to try to secure public, as well as private, leverage, and it is not always my advice that people should go public in response.
Mims Davies
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Will he confirm on the Floor of the House that Craig and Lindsay Foreman are not spies?
Mr Falconer
I have said before that they are innocent tourists, and we stand by that position.
To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), I see from my notes that the last time the Foreign Secretary raised this case was with the Iranian Foreign Minister on 8 May. I reassure her that Ministers are raising it very regularly at the highest level, despite the press of other business. As well as the ministerial level, there is the official level; officials will continue to work intensively on this, and raise the case at every opportunity with their Iranian counterparts. Although it is true that our embassy in Tehran remains temporarily closed because of the situation there, it continues to operate remotely. I reassure the House that we continue to raise this matter, despite that temporary closure. As I said earlier, our ambassador has pressed the Iranian authorities to restore telephone contact with the family, to allow Craig and Lindsay to see one another, and to ensure access to appropriate medical care and essential welfare items.
As I know my hon. Friends will recognise, and as we have discussed privately, cases of this nature are complex and highly sensitive. When British nationals are detained overseas, they are, of course, subject to the legal system of the country in which they are held. However, we consistently advocate for fair treatment, due process and respect for the international obligations set out in the UN minimum standards, often known as the Mandela rules. As I have said, in Iran, engagement must be handled with particular care. We are balancing private engagement and public channels to ensure that we do not inadvertently make the situation more difficult for Craig and Lindsay.
Mr Falconer
I will, once I have made a little more progress. These cases rarely move quickly or predictably. Progress is often incremental, and requires sustained and patient engagement, and I assure the House that we are persistent and determined in our efforts.
Mr Falconer
I think I probably have to take turns, so I will give way to the hon. Lady and then to my hon. and learned Friend.
Alicia Kearns
The Minister has made the point about public versus private, and what works. The French approach of declaring their person arbitrarily detained worked; they are home. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), given that the Minister has just recognised that Iranian law does not provide for a fair trial, and that we cannot recognise due process to have been followed, will the Minister at least declare on the Floor of the House that Craig and Lindsay are being arbitrarily detained?
Mr Falconer
I will try to make a little progress before I take the intervention from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. I am always reluctant, when at the Dispatch Box, to compare our diplomacy with that of our friends, partners and allies, but I say gently to the hon. Lady that the French case to which I think she is referring involved four years of detention in conditions that no one would want to see Craig and Lindsay in. I understand the point that she is making, but comparisons between cases are not easily made, and we have to use our best judgment and give our best advice to the families.
I recognise that the family have called for stronger public action, including a range of steps, some of which were outlined very clearly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. As I have tried to make clear throughout my speech, we will give the family our best advice. It also falls to us to give our best judgment about what is in Craig and Lindsay’s interest. That is at the heart of our approach.
Tony Vaughan
Does the Minister agree that it is precisely because of the complexity of these cases, which potentially involve numerous different Government Departments, that we need an envoy for complex consular cases, who has not just the resources, but the authority to bring the Government together, and to act proactively to get such cases moving? Can he update the House on where that proposal is at, and whether there will be the framework and the powers to bring these sorts of cases forward? The Minister will be aware of matters that potentially concern other Government Departments in this case, and it may help if an individual has the authority, resources and powers to bring these sorts of cases forward. What are his thoughts on that?
Mr Falconer
I can confirm to my hon. and learned Friend and to the House that we are progressing the appointment of an envoy. One of the issues we have sought to navigate in the appointment of an envoy is that the Government and I recognise the responsibilities that the Foreign Secretary and I have to this House and to other Members, who will wish to represent their constituents appropriately in public, just as we are doing as we speak. There is therefore a balance to be struck in appointing an envoy with the ability to do all the things that my hon. Friend describes while not taking away from parliamentary accountability, which is a central pillar of our system. We are bringing forward that appointment, and I look forward to returning to the House with further details about it, and about the individual who I hope will take up that post.
I recognise that even during this short exchange, there have been differing views about the most effective ways to secure progress. That is entirely understandable in the circumstances. However, I wish to reassure my hon. and learned Friend and the family in the Gallery that every decision we take is guided by what we judge to be in Craig and Lindsay’s best interests. Our objective is clear: to work towards their return to their loved ones, and, until then, to ensure improvements in their welfare.
I remain deeply concerned for Craig and Lindsay Foreman, particularly in the light of recent developments affecting their health. We are working, and will continue to work, intensively through all appropriate channels to support Craig and Lindsay, improve their conditions and pursue their swift release.
Question put and agreed to.