British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme

Debate between Justin Madders and Peter Kyle

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I could have listened to the hon. Lady for much longer, because she is listing important areas across the sector. I am very aware of the challenges and opportunities in an economy that is full of great enterprise and a lot of highly profitable businesses doing great things with great entrepreneurs. Listening to her, we would think that the economy was not full of people and businesses that are thriving. She only focuses on the challenges.

Let me be clear on how BICS happened. It came about through consultation with the very businesses that the hon. Lady is asking us to listen to. They have been part of designing the system. We will release and implement a targeted scheme that will have maximum benefit. We will announce over the summer an eligibility checker, so that businesses can see their eligibility for the scheme. Of course, as we move forward, we will make payments for costs that may have been incurred this year.

Let me be really clear, however, about how those businesses are working. Most of the businesses—I include the business that was on the Radio 4 “Today” programme this morning; Sharon from Tees Components up in Teesside was on the programme—have entered into a contract with fixed prices for the coming year. Most companies in the categories that we are targeting, which have manufacturing processes in which electricity is a high-component cost, are either hedging, or are in contracts, so that they have some stability into the future. We have designed a scheme that takes that into account, will be there when they need it, and supplies support for costs that they would have had this year.

On CO₂ and the issues that are in the news, six months ago, within days of becoming Secretary of State, I mothballed Ensus up in Teesside—a fantastic company. I have had to un-mothball it, and I did so in the first couple of days of the strikes in Iran to ensure resilience in key parts of our economy. That was leaked; we do not normally comment on leaks, but that is out there now. These are the things that I am doing. I am being bold and creative, and am acting in the interests of the whole of society and the economy to make sure that we have the resilience to carry on doing business, and come out of this with growth in our economy.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

We will not prosper as a nation without a lot of support for the manufacturing sector—vital for our security and our resilience—so I welcome today’s statement. I notice with some irony that the fertiliser sector is included. A producer in my constituency closed under the previous Government, and as the Secretary of State has already referred to, several hundred million pounds have already been spent correcting the failure to foresee the risks of such a move.

It is good to see that a number of sectors in my constituency are covered by the scheme, including automotive. The Secretary of State will be aware that the automotive sector faces multifaceted issues, not least on the supply side, but also to do with competition and European proposals. Will he say a little bit more about what else he can do to support the wider challenges facing automotive and manufacturing more generally?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work when he was in my Department, upon which I seek to continue. He is right to point to the closure of the fertiliser plant in, I believe, 2023. Those are the sorts of things that have stripped out resilience from our economy and society and which I have sought to rebuild in turbulent times. The automotive sector will qualify for the BIC scheme and other high energy- intensive industries outside automotive will also benefit from the supercharger before it does. I regularly meet automotive industry figures, and the Department is deeply engaged with the sector. He will know some of the outcomes of those conversations and that it is a sector that has this Government and me on its side.

Public Health

Debate between Justin Madders and Peter Kyle

Monday 15th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Today marks 12 weeks since the country went into lockdown and we saw the biggest peacetime restrictions ever. Over the past 12 weeks, the public have made huge sacrifices. The vast majority of them supported and adhered to the lockdown, and it is right that we take a moment to acknowledge the sacrifices they have made in the interests of public health—the business that faces an uncertain future, the child who has missed out on crucial social and educational opportunities, and the grandparents who just want to give their grandchildren a hug. We know it has been hard, and we thank them for doing their bit.

We also thank those in the NHS and other parts of the public sector, in social care and of course the millions of other people who have made their own contributions in the collective fight against the virus. When we have seen over the weekend images that represent the worst of this country, let us not forget that many, many more have in recent months shown us what the very best of this country can look like.

It is also right to take a moment to remember the more than 41,000 lives that have been lost to the virus, each one a tragic loss. We mourn them all.

We are here today to consider the third iteration of the regulations, just as further relaxations come into force to allow non-essential shops to open for the first time. Those measures are probably the single largest relaxation since lockdown was introduced—but we are not here to debate those changes. In our view, we ought to be, but instead we are here to debate the changes that came into force two weeks ago, on 1 June, and the interventions on the Minister that we have heard demonstrate why there is some anxiety.

Changes should be debated and have democratic consent before they are introduced. I thank the Minister for acknowledging Opposition concern in respect of that, and I understand why urgent action is needed, but it should be perfectly possible for us to debate regulations at short notice. We in the Opposition stand ready to co-operate with whatever is necessary to make that happen.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

Considering that Government have one job, and one job alone right now, which is keeping us safe and preparing for the days ahead, is it not inexcusable that they are not able to keep Parliament up to date at the same speed as they announce things to the media?

[Justin Madders]

I will come on to the discourteous way in which the Prime Minister has been announcing these things to press conferences instead of this Chamber.

It is important that this Chamber has a role because these are not minor or consequential changes that can be nodded through without debate. They affect millions of people’s lives, and we know that if we get it wrong, the consequences will be devastating. Debating them weeks after the event, and in some cases when they have been superseded by the next set of regulations, demeans parliamentary democracy. Changes such as these should always be accompanied by a statement to Parliament, not just showcased at Downing Street press conferences. We are not merely a rubber-stamping exercise to create the veneer of a democratic process. We should not be debating these measures late, and we should not be debating them without seeing the full extent of the information on which the Government based their decisions. We know that the next review of the regulations must take place on or before 25 June. If that review leads to further relaxations, will the Minister commit today that any regulations introduced off the back of that will be debated here before they are implemented and not retrospectively?

The reviews, which are legally required to happen under the regulations, took place on 16 April, 7 May and 28 May. I ask the Minister: where are they? In a written question, I asked the Secretary of State whether he would publish those reviews. I received a reply last week stating that the Department of Health and Social Care had indicated that it would not be possible to answer the question within the usual time period. Why on earth not? If the Government have conducted these reviews, why are they not in a position to disclose them? I find this absolutely incredible. Here we have the most far-reaching impositions into everyday life in this country, yet we have no idea what the Government’s own reviews of them say. These are reviews that are required under legislation.

[Justin Madders]

If these regulations were actually going to be changed as a result of what we said here, we might see a better attendance, but the Government have shown the contempt in which they hold this place by introducing them way after the event. The question is: where are the reviews? What is it that we cannot see in them? This betrays a cavalier attitude to transparency, and it does absolutely nothing to engender confidence that the decisions that are being taken are the right ones.

[Peter Kyle]

We have to get this on to the record. My right hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) want to be here engaging in the debate, but they are unable to be here because the virtual Parliament has been closed down for debates such as these, and they have to shield. The Government are telling them not to be here. That is the reason they are not here. Is that not correct?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am sure there are many Members who cannot be here for good reasons but who would like to take part in the debate. They are following the Government’s advice, which is to work from home wherever possible. This just shows how confused the approach is sometimes, and it really is an affront to democracy that those Members cannot take part in important debates such as these.