Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Last month in Business and Trade questions, I asked the Secretary of State to show some backbone and stand up to the Chancellor and say, “No more business taxes”. But he did not: far from permanently lower business rates, small and medium-sized businesses on our high streets are experiencing enormous rate hikes. Will the Minister apologise to those retail and hospitality businesses who feel so misled?
Chris Bryant
No, because I want the hon. Lady to apologise for what the Conservatives did to the British economy and British businesses. Why is it that, following the Brexit that they delivered to this country, only one in 10 British businesses are exporting, whereas three out of 10 French businesses and four out of 10 German businesses export? It is because they gave us a Brexit which, frankly, was not fit for purpose. That is precisely what we should be changing.
Of course there are problems for lots of businesses up and down the country, but I note that every single time we ask the Conservatives, “Where is the money to come from to pay for improving the NHS and putting our public services back on their feet?” they always say it will come from some random budget. [Interruption.] Just as when the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for Liz Truss, he wanted us to—
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I did not hear an answer to my question. To add insult to injury to the retail and hospitality businesses on our high streets, the letter that has gone out from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the change in business rates gives completely different information from the guidance on the Treasury website. The difference means thousands and thousands of pounds. Will the Minister commit today to getting in touch with his Cabinet colleague to ensure that those letters are corrected?
Chris Bryant
Mr Speaker, I will find some Strepsils for you later.
Chris Bryant
Well, I will find some hearing aids for the hon. Lady, because she refused to listen to the answer I was providing. Basically, when the Conservatives left government, they had not provided a single penny to make sure the cliff edge would not affect every single small business in this country. That is the problem they should be apologising for. [Interruption.] I cannot hear what she is chuntering, so I probably need a hearing aid, too. Of course I am happy to look into the letters she is talking about, but, really, the Conservatives need to get with the programme. Even the leader of the Conservative party now admits that Brexit was a “shock” on a level with covid and the economic crisis—but it was a self-inflicted shock.
Chris Bryant
First of all, we have given £5 billion more to the Scottish Government; I sometimes just wish they would stop whining and moaning, and get on with delivering what they can with the budget that we provided to them. Secondly, I have met the Scotch Whisky Association frequently since I came into this post at the beginning of September. It is delighted that we are delivering trade deals around the world. The trade deal with India, in particular, will reduce tariffs in India from 150% to 75% and, in 10 years, to 40%. That will make a radical difference to the ability to export Scotch whisky around the world.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Government have repeatedly said that they would introduce permanently lower business rates. We were pleased to hear the Chancellor announce lower multipliers in the Budget, but the recently announced higher valuations will wipe out any benefit that businesses will get from the lower multipliers. UKHospitality estimates that the average increase for hospitality businesses will be 76% over the next three years; that compares with warehouses, offices and large supermarkets, whose rates will go up by 16%, 7% and 4% respectively. Given that it has transpired that the Government were informed of the higher valuations back in September, how does that align with their pledge to support small businesses, and how do the Government plan to meet the commitment, in their own small business strategy, to bring down business rates bills?
Blair McDougall
On this, as on all things, my hon. Friend is a strong voice for the problems faced by her local people. I know that she raised those concerns about local services and resourcing challenges, particularly in Middleton, with Royal Mail. I understand that Royal Mail has recruited 17 more staff in the past few weeks, and that the Middleton delivery office is now fully staffed. As I say, I am discussing such issues with Royal Mail, and it recognises the need to improve.
Mr Speaker, on behalf of the whole House, I wish all our heroic posties a merry Christmas at this most difficult time of year for them.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Chris McDonald
The Government are, of course, very concerned about cost pressures on hospitality businesses. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) met with hospitality businesses just this week to discuss exactly that. The hon. Member raises the question of a reduction in value added tax, which would affect the whole industry, so it would be something of a blunt instrument. Instead, the Government are providing transitional support for those businesses, particularly on business rates. We continue to listen to and work with the sector.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I wish to come in after question 6, Mr Speaker—apologies.
Mr Speaker
That is not what we have been told by your department, but I am sure we can make arrangements accordingly.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Chris Bryant
We are looking at all those issues in the round. We need to ensure that there is the support that people need in a variety of different ways. Some of that is about ensuring that bills get paid on time and some is making sure that those businesses have the access to finance that they have historically found difficult. We need to build on the successes and enable people to diversify more. That is precisely what our Department is there to help with. If the hon. Lady has people who want to meet me, I am happy to do that, but I can assure her that we are determined to drive economic growth.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Five Lib Dem Lords a-leaping. That is all it took for the Liberal Democrat party to throw every British business under the bus and expose them to the unimaginable liability of infinite tribunal payouts. It is hard to think of a more anti-growth, anti-job measure. On Monday, the Liberal Democrat spokesman was against, on Wednesday they were for and goodness knows where they will be tomorrow. Does the Minister agree that British business would have an entirely fair case to dismiss the lot of them?
Chris Bryant
I can count; the hon. Member cannot. Let me remind him: growth under the Tories was 1.5%, and growth under Labour is 2.2%. Which is higher? It is higher under Labour, isn’t it? Why did we lose the vote last night? Because of 25 Tory hereditary peers. Why on earth would that be? Why do we think they might not be willing to support Labour? Look, it is absolutely clear that it is business that builds economic growth, but we cannot create a wealthy nation if we do not tackle poverty, and we cannot tackle poverty unless we grow the economy—just like a prosperous business cannot be built on the backs of the workers, and that is what we will never do.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—I appreciate you giving me the time.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). Some £90 billion is being lost every year in tax receipts, 20,000 small firms have stopped all exports to the EU and 33% of currently trading businesses are experiencing extra costs. The Prime Minister’s chief economic adviser has recommended a customs union with the EU. The Deputy Prime Minister has also suggested that countries within a customs union tend to see stronger economic growth, and the Minister agrees, so what is his Government going to do about it?
Chris Bryant
We are going to get the best possible deal that we can out of the European Union. That is one of the reasons that I was in Brussels only yesterday alongside Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Minister for the Cabinet Office. We are getting a better deal from the European Union. We want to ensure that we have frictionless trade with the EU—that was what was promised by the ragtag and bobtail of that lot on the Conservative Benches —and that is what we will deliver. But I say to the hon. Member that in all earnestness we had a manifesto commitment, and that is what we will stick by.
Mr Speaker
As the Minister knows, we do not normally use names, and he will not be doing it again.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Member for raising her concerns on behalf of her constituents and businesses. We do recognise the ongoing pressures and are acting. Last night I met lots of colleagues from across the industry, and I want to make sure that we continue to talk with the sector and with pubs to understand the questions they face. The main transitional support for ratepayers losing RHL relief is through our supporting small business scheme, which also helps those losing small business rates relief or the rural rate relief at the revaluation. We are supporting pubs and continue to work with them and support the sector. I thank her for raising that.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is incredibly depressing that the Minister does not appear to recognise the seriousness of the situation for pubs in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and, indeed, across the country, with around eight closing every week. Pubs already face huge costs and hiked taxes—there really are no more pips to squeak. It can be no surprise that, since the Chancellor’s Budget, some landlords, already emotionally drained from a difficult year, do not have the stomach to check their new business rates liability until after Christmas. If the Minister truly values our pubs, will she take meaningful action, rather than just tell us that business rates are going down when they are actually going up?
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
I apologise on behalf of the Secretary of State, who is striking deals in the United States of America. In recent weeks, we have announced £2.5 billion of investment in the UK’s first small modular reactor site at Wylfa, launched a critical minerals strategy and done a deal with the US on pharmaceuticals.
Mr Speaker, in true Christmas spirit, I can assure you as Trade Minister that there is no tariff on gold, frankincense or myrrh, and Santa Claus can travel freely without a visa—although apparently, he knows when you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness’ sake!
Bobby Dean
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As you probably know, south London is wonderful, but you may not know that it is one of the UK’s largest regional economies. Last week my local council, the London borough of Sutton, launched its economic growth plan, inviting businesses to take advantage of opportunities in the area. Will the Minister meet me and the local council leader to connect the business community with all the opportunities that exist in my borough?
Mr Speaker
Order. One of us is going to have to sit down. Please, it is topicals and I have some Members who did not get in before you. You’ve got to help them, please.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for so kindly hosting me on a trip to Falmouth port, where I saw for myself the great potential in her constituency for critical minerals and floating offshore wind. I recognise the skills issue, and the Government are supporting the sector through the Government’s clean energy jobs plan and another £180 million for demonstration projects. She should be assured that I have raised the potential of Falmouth, particularly the extensive anchorage there, with both the National Wealth Fund and the Crown Estate.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Labour’s steel strategy was originally promised in spring 2025, but yesterday we learned from a written ministerial statement, snuck out without Ministers coming to the House, that the strategy will now not be published in 2025 at all—it is more likely to be spring 2026. We have no steel strategy after 18 months, there is no sight of the US tariff agreement on steel that the Prime Minister claimed to have on 8 May, and no deal with the Chinese owners of British Steel. Will the Minister give the sector the Christmas present that it wants and publish the steel strategy?
Chris Bryant
I backed the national minimum wage. Because I have been here since the time of Queen Victoria, I remember a time when the Conservative party—backed by the Lib Dems, incidentally—held out completely against the idea of a national minimum wage. If we are going to build successful businesses in this country, it is important that we have a national minimum wage that really pays the bills and enables people to put food on the table for their kids.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
May I welcome the deal with the United States to set zero tariffs on pharmaceutical exports? Together with the British Business Bank’s investment of £100 million in biotech, that is a real boost. However, the US offer was for just three years, whereas the price adjustment we have promised for the NHS is permanent. When the Secretary of State met the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative in America last night, what assurance did he get that the Americans will not come back and reimpose tariffs on UK pharmaceuticals in three years’ time?
Bobby Dean
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister indicated to the House that the Liberal Democrats were against the national minimum wage in the ’90s. My own memories are hazy, but I am reliably informed that that was not the case, so I hope the Minister will correct the record.
Mr Speaker
That is not a point of order, but you have certainly put it on the record. We will leave it at that.
Seasonal Work
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the Opposition spokesperson to move the motion.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
As my hon. Friend will remember, it was wonderful to see the King and the President of the United States sit down at Windsor recently. What was particularly striking was that, on the British side, only the King had run a business—he ran the Duchy of Cornwall. Nobody else had run a business. On the American side, everybody had run a business. Is that not quite a stark contrast?
Nigel Huddleston
My right hon. Friend is correct: having people who have run a business is good for Government. I am sorry to hear that Labour Members do not believe that their Cabinet would be better if there were a few more pro-business people in it. I can assure him that most of his constituents agree.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Hon. Members—
John Slinger
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Conservative Members often talk about wealth creators. Of course business people and entrepreneurs are wealth creators, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that wealth is also created by the public services and infrastructure that we need, which has to be paid for?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin McCluskey
The hon. Lady makes a good point. As we look towards the future of the schemes, we are looking at how they can be applied to a range of different types of properties. I know that there have been particular issues with park homes, and I think she may have corresponded with me on that. I am more than happy to meet her to discuss how we take this forward and maybe remedy some of those issues in future schemes.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Does the Minister accept that 22 million households are seeing their bills go up to pay for this policy, which is a handout for 6 million households? Is that not like the Government’s promise to cut bills by £300 when actually, bills have gone up by £200 instead? Does he acknowledge that the best way to help families who are struggling with their bills is to cut electricity bills for everyone? Our cheap power plan would do exactly that and cut electricity bills by 20% in time for winter. Why will the Government not consider it?
Martin McCluskey
I will not resile from the support that we are offering vulnerable households this winter. It is £150. On what the right hon. Lady says, how is any benefit provided in this country? It is provided by all of us pooling our resources to provide support to the most vulnerable. I am proud of that record. When it comes to her proposal over a carbon tax, let us look at the coalition that she has amassed against her: businesses, church leaders and others who have said that this is not a workable proposal and that it would cause more uncertainty for British businesses.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the Minister commit to an emergency home insulation programme beginning this winter for people on the lowest incomes so we can drive down their bills now and, more importantly, for good? Will he also acknowledge, given our recent conversation, the realities of rural fuel poverty? In Westmorland, like in many other rural communities, 25% of houses were built before 1900, making them so much harder to insulate and more expensive to heat. Will the warm home discount be tailored to cut bills in rural communities too?
Chris McDonald
Many companies want to invest in the UK because of our clean energy mission. Any decision that the Government take will never compromise our national security. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about China, let us compare this Government’s record with that of the previous Conservative Government. The Conservatives built a nuclear power station that relied on the Chinese Government. We are building new nuclear at Sizewell, and it will be financed by the British Government.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
“The skills, infrastructure and experience built by Scotland’s oil and gas sector are vital assets that must be safeguarded and redeployed as we accelerate the transition to clean energy.”
These are not my words, but the words of Scottish Renewables. Why are the Government pursuing a strategy that is decimating that very industry and costing jobs across the country?
Chris McDonald
I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend recently to discuss Armitage Shanks. I am concerned about the ceramics businesses in his constituency and across the region. We want those businesses to be competitive, and while much of our earlier discussion was about electricity prices, for ceramics and many other energy-intensive industries, the issue is gas. After policy costs, the UK is competitive with many European countries on gas, but I understand that there are competitive pressures from outside the EU, and I will continue to engage with him and the ceramics sector to look at these issues.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The recent Cumbria Tourism business survey showed that 56% of businesses are struggling to pay their energy bills, with an astonishing 14% actively considering selling up or closing down. Once a community loses its pub, it loses its heart, and it very rarely gets it back. Ahead of the Budget, will the Minister speak with the Chancellor and others in the Treasury to back the Liberal Democrats’ call for a 5% cut in VAT to support this vital industry, which is, after all, at the forefront of sustainable business practices and at the heart of so many of our communities?
Tom Gordon
I appreciate the response that the Minister has given. He will not be surprised to hear me banging on—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to Mr Easton, you are going to have to sit down, because you are standing in front of the Member who is speaking.
Tom Gordon
The Minister will not be surprised to hear me talking about spray foam insulation once again. One of the biggest frustrations that people have is that they do not have faith or trust in Government schemes because of the failure of the installation of spray foam insulation under the previous Government. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that mortgage lenders do away with the blanket ban on providing mortgages to people with spray foam insulation, what steps has he taken to reform TrustMark, and what consideration has he given to fixing the problem once and for all?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a broad consensus across the House that if we can put solar on rooftops, that space can be utilised to generate clean power. We are ambitious and excited about the opportunity to put solar panels on as many rooftops as possible. We consulted recently on whether car parks should have solar panels on them. We are looking through the responses to that consultation and will say more in due course, but wherever possible, if we can generate clean, cheap power by utilising rooftops for solar, we want to do it.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I agree with the Minister that rooftops are the place to put solar. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) made clear when she was Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, agricultural land should be protected from ground-mounted solar installations. The campaign group Stop Oversized Solar has found that operational sites and solar facilities in the planning pipeline alone are set to replace an area of farmland bigger than Merseyside, and that overall up to 5% of UK cropland is at risk from solar, so why do the Government persist with their claim that land take will be 1%? When Labour said that food security is national security, did the energy team not get the memo?
Martin McCluskey
The hon. Member will have heard my earlier response regarding ECO4 and the appalling situation facing people across the country. To be very clear, all those affected by the ECO4 situation will receive letters offering them a free audit; many have already received those letters. I encourage hon. Members across the House to make sure that their constituents are taking up that offer, because that is the gateway to remediation. Earlier I set out the principles for designing the future system and ensuring that we do not get into a situation like this ever again. As for his final comment on—
Rachel Taylor
Last year, over 1,000 former mineworkers in North Warwickshire and Bedworth benefited from this Government’s historic decision to release the surplus from the mineworkers’ pension scheme. Now, members of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, such as my constituents Ray Sweet, Don Jennings and Andy Callow, are seeking that same justice. I held an event with the BCSSS members in my constituency, at which I heard from a woman who joined the National Coal Board at 16 and went to the mines at 5.30 in the morning to ensure night shift miners got their pay packets. Could the Minister reassure—
Rachel Taylor
Could the Minister reassure my constituent and others like her that the Government are doing everything they can—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry, but one of us is going to have to sit down. Please—topical questions are meant to be short and punchy. You cannot do a full statement. I think you ought to try to catch my eye for an Adjournment debate, because this is a very important subject. Minister, I think you have got the principle of the question.
Michael Shanks
I pay tribute to all those who toiled in our coalmines for a very long time—we owe them a great debt. As the Prime Minister said in the House on 12 November, the Government remain committed to agreeing a way forward with the trustees that will benefit scheme members. We will make an announcement on this issue in due course.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
At this COP, acres of the Amazon were chopped down so that the Secretary of State can lecture us about saving the planet. Can the Minister justify why his Government did not even put a single penny into the forest fund, which could have at least repaired some of the damage?
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
May I also suggest that this is such a big issue, but nobody put in for an urgent question? I really do think it is important.
Michael Shanks
First, I am sure the whole House would echo my hon. Friend’s comments about her constituents in Monmouthshire. Our thanks go to the emergency services, who have done an incredibly diligent job in difficult circumstances. She is right that it is yet another example of where the climate crisis is not some theoretical future threat, but a present reality. We have to tackle the climate crisis as quickly as possible. That is why this Government are doing everything we can to get off of fossil fuels, while also investing in flood defences across the country.
Michael Shanks
That sounds like just another example of the chaos that Reform-led councils across the country are inflicting on communities. The truth is that we had just a few moments ago an example of why local councils thinking about the impact of climate change is so important, and we now have Reform councils dismissing the very action that would protect communities from devastating floods and other impacts of climate change. It is important that we stay the course, recognise that the climate crisis is important and do everything possible to protect communities.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Earlier, the Minister said that only 0.4% of land is being taken by solar, but he knows that in the Gainsborough constituency the number is far higher, because I went to see him—he was most gracious and reasonable. He will know that 14,000 acres around Gainsborough will be taken from some prime agricultural land. Just to be reasonable, will he have a look at this again and try to take all these solar applications together?
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Today’s news that ExxonMobil is to close the Fife ethylene plant in Mossmoran is a devastating blow to many of my constituents. I am furious that contract workers appear to have been locked out of the site this morning. News reaching me suggests that ExxonMobil staff, many of whom have decades of service, have been told that they will lose their jobs but have no idea of the redundancy package they will receive. That follows months of attempts to engage with ExxonMobil in good faith, during which it was not forthcoming about its intentions or about what the Government can do to save the plant and the jobs. ExxonMobil continues to ignore my requests for clarity. Will the Government do all that they can to support a future for the plant and its workers? Will the Minister join me in calling on ExxonMobil to share vital information at this incredibly—
Mr Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] I am speaking to the hon. Lady. This is a very important subject, and I really do think it matters—she is absolutely right. I think such issues should be heard and discussed in the Chamber. It might be worth thinking about putting in for an urgent question, because this issue is so serious.
Michael Shanks
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
This is obviously a hugely concerning time for the workers in Mossmoran, their families and the wider community. The Government have been in regular contact with the company. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) met with the Business Secretary recently and has been trying to engage with the company as much as she possibly can. The company has faced significant global challenges, including closing a chemical plant in France. We stand ready to provide whatever support we can, but the issues she has raised are obviously deeply concerning. I know that the Business Secretary will look to speak to her and others to ensure that we have as robust a response as possible and that we support the workforce at what is obviously an extremely difficult time.
Andrew Bowie
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the very serious news coming out of the Mossmorran plant this morning, and given that the news broke after Members were able to submit an urgent question, might you inform me, and indeed the rest of the House, how it might be possible for the Government to bring forward a statement on the situation today? Hundreds of workers, the entire community and the wider energy system need to know as soon as possible what the situation is and what the Government are doing to resolve it.
Mr Speaker
A lot of Members obviously have a keen interest in this matter, as it affects their constituencies. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard the request. I am more than happy to support that request if the Government bring it forward.
Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Power Station: Wylfa
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month 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
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend rightly highlights the huge economic advantage of nuclear. I grew up in Ayrshire, next to Hunterston, so I know how important nuclear power stations are for the communities that grow up around them. We are considering existing sites. This is not, of course, the end of our nuclear ambitions; we have been clear that we see nuclear as a hugely important part of our energy mix now and in future. Our work to consider the regulatory regime will report in due course to ensure that we have a robust process that rightly recognises the importance of nuclear safety but is also flexible enough to take advantage of the opportunities of nuclear.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
It is no secret that I am a fan of new nuclear in this country, so I welcome the progress on SMRs. If we are to have a strong economy and a good standard of life, we need abundant, reliable and cheap energy. Nuclear works in the winter, can run 24/7 to power artificial intelligence, and is 100% clean to boot. It uses 3,000 times less land than wind and solar energy, and the latest prices around the world show that it can be much cheaper, too.
The Conservative position is that we need a lot more nuclear. We were the party that overturned the complete failure of the previous Labour Government to start any British nuclear plants, so I say this with some feeling. I have been told that there was just one nuclear welder left in the country when we started work on Hinkley Point C. We invested in the supply chain and in skills, which had completely withered under the previous Government. Now the most important thing is to keep building.
I personally signed off on a third large nuclear plant at Wylfa because it is our best site. It could host both large-scale nuclear and small modular reactors. By ruling out large-scale at Wylfa and ditching the 24 GW target, are the Government calling time on new large-scale nuclear? That is what it looks like to the rest of the country. It would be a huge mistake—the same mistake that Labour made last time it was in power. If we want cheap energy and growth in this country, we need to build, build, build when it comes to nuclear.
The Minister talked about power generation from SMRs in the 2030s, but industry is being told that it will be 2042 at the earliest. Who is right, and is that really the best the Government can do? We have plans to make nuclear building much cheaper. In fact, to cut environmental red tape, we tabled radical amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but the Government voted against them. The nuclear regulatory taskforce will report soon, though; will the Government consider our proposals when it does? Lastly, does the Minister agree that it is fundamentally absurd for the Green party to talk about clean power while it has a policy of dismantling Britain’s nuclear power plants?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Just to help Members, this question is purely about Bicester and Woodstock.
Calum Miller
I wish all the questions were just about Bicester and Woodstock.
I welcome the Minister to her place. Becky, who runs the Red Lion in Eynsham, and Donna, who runs the Oxfordshire Yeoman in Freeland, tell me that they are working upwards of 80 hours a week just to keep their pubs open. Despite loyal customers and rising turnover, they are struggling to meet soaring bills from employment costs, food, energy, business rates and a tied tenancy, which means that prices are over £100 more per barrel. In small villages across my constituency, pubs are the lifeblood and fabric of the community. Will the Minister meet Becky, Donna and me to discuss what more the Government can do to support the vital village pub?
Peter Kyle
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the industrial strategy gives clarity on policy for 10 years into the future, which has been welcomed by businesses large and small. I also reassure him and the businesses in his community that there will be no repeat of the mini-Budget that the Conservatives inflicted on our country, for which we are still paying the price. Finally, I reassure him that we have a Chancellor who puts first and foremost the primary mission of this Government, which is economic growth—the kind of growth that is delivering record investment in our economy, from which every business, large and small, is benefiting equally right around the United Kingdom.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I welcome the all-new ministerial team to their positions. They have inherited a crisis, because business confidence has plunged to a record low since the Chancellor’s Halloween budget a year ago today. Will the Business Secretary assure this House that he will find and demonstrate his backbone, stand up to the Chancellor, and encourage business investment by following Conservative plans to reduce welfare spending so that we can scrap the family business tax and cut small business rates?
Blair McDougall
I share my hon. Friend’s frustration at the lack of an industrial strategy from the SNP Government in Edinburgh. It has meant that workers at Alexander Dennis in his constituency are on furlough rather than doing what they do best: making world-class buses for public transport. For our part, we are supporting combined mayoral authorities to co-ordinate the procurement of buses through a Crown Commercial Service commercial agreement, and we are publishing a 10-year pipeline of future bus orders to provide the much-needed certainty that the sector requires. That includes providing advice on using social value criteria that suppliers such as Alexander Dennis are well placed to meet when procuring new buses, such as creating and retaining jobs in a way that respects our legal obligations. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for keeping this issue on the agenda.
Mr Speaker
It is no use the Secretary State looking at me with a grin as though I am out of order. We are still only on the second question and I have to get some other Members in—that is all I am bothered about. It will get worse shortly—I have got Jim to come! I call Robin Swann.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I will not take the dig about being short personally, Mr Speaker.
The industrial strategy and the strategic defence review both offer great opportunities to the entire United Kingdom. Can I seek reassurances from the Minister that he will work with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland businesses get benefit out of both?
Blair McDougall
As I said to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) a moment ago, we have already met with the Northern Ireland Executive on these issues. Skills are an essential part of the industrial strategy because we see, again and again, industries around the country that are desperate to grow, and have the orders, but are unable to create the high-paying jobs that we need. That is an absolute priority for us as we implement the industrial strategy.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
Labour’s industrial strategy recognises that housing and infrastructure are vital to driving regional investment. But as I hope the Minister will know, across the road, the Treasury has been quietly consulting on changes to the landfill tax, ending the decades-long exemption for quarries. That change would add millions of pounds on to infra- structure projects and increase tax costs for construction businesses across the country. How would such a move help grow our economy and build the homes and infra- structure that we need?
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Timothy, you used to be an adviser who specialised in not answering questions; we do not need any help! [Laughter.]
Blair McDougall
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am glad that those on the Opposition Benches recognise excellence when they see it.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I also welcome the ministerial Front Benchers to their new roles. The Liberal Democrats have long championed an industrial strategy. In government, we created the Green Investment Bank, the British Business Bank and the regional growth fund, and we opposed the Conservative Government’s damaging decision to scrap the industrial plan. We welcome the industrial strategy’s return, especially its focus on investing in skills.
However, businesses know that the apprenticeship levy does not work: funding is hard to access and millions go unspent. We welcomed the pledge in June to replace it with a more flexible growth and skills levy, but firms and young people are still awaiting details. Will the Minister provide details of what training this will fund, so that businesses and young people can plan ahead with certainty?
Blair McDougall
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive question; I am very happy to pursue that within Government. The wider point is that both the small business strategy and the industrial strategy are important because they are cross-Government strategies, as lots of sectors and individual businesses are facing challenges that are not just the responsibility of one Minister. I will certainly follow up on that.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I associate myself with the remarks about British Beauty Week. In addition to beauty businesses, one of the key ingredients for growth on our high streets is having a post office in the mix. As Post Office Minister, he has inherited a network of 11,500 post offices across the country and a consultation on the size of that network. Can he echo what his predecessor said at the Dispatch Box, and commit to supporting our high streets by maintaining the scale of the post office network throughout this Parliament?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
I was pleased to address a meeting of Hydrogen UK just last week, where I reaffirmed Government support for the sector, which we have recognised through our industrial strategy and the clean energy industries sector plan. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss in particular Luxfer’s ambitions to invest more in the UK.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I welcome the team to their significant roles for the United Kingdom.
This week, the other place voted for five reasonable amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, representing a meaningful compromise with cross-party support to mitigate some of the worst of the damage caused by the Bill. As the Office for Budget Responsibility now scores the impact of that legislation, this is one of the last chances to avoid the costs, taxes and spending cuts that will result from it. Will the Secretary of State now put country before party, do the right thing by British business and accept those compromise amendments?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the shadow Secretary of State’s warm words. He shadowed me when I first went into my role at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology; he was then moved here before me, so I have followed him to this role. I watch with trepidation the next reshuffle on his Benches.
The shadow Secretary of State mentions the workers’ rights Bill, which is still between the two Houses; I hope we will be reconciled as soon as possible so that it can get Royal Assent and benefit workers and businesses right across the nation. Once the Bill passes, we will, of course, undertake a period of implementation. My predecessor and the previous Deputy Prime Minister, who championed this legislation, were clear from the outset that the Bill will modernise the British workplace so that it is beneficial for businesses and for the people who work in them.
The modern economy has changed; it is different from 20 years ago. The Conservatives had the time to modernise the economy and the relationships within workplaces, and they chose not to take that—
Mr Speaker
Order. I don’t want to do this, but this is topicals, and all these Members need to get in. We did not get through the list already. You have to help me to help them.
Andrew Griffith
I will save time, Mr Speaker, by not mentioning the 13 leading business organisations that have all called for certainty now—not well-intentioned future consultations on implementation, but certainty now, because jobs and the economy are bleeding out. The Secretary of State will know that even the Resolution Foundation—that wonderful finishing school for aspiring Labour Ministers—said this week that some of the measures in the Bill should not be proceeded with.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
My hon. Friend is a dynamic advocate for a dynamic part of the country in the Thames valley. The industrial strategy and its sector plans highlight the strengths in his area, especially in tech and life sciences. Alongside the national package to grow the sector, specific interventions in the south-east include an AI growth zone in Culham, support for the Solent freeport, expanding the British Business Bank’s nations and regions investment fund and major projects backing the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor. We will keep working with my hon. Friend to unlock the potential across the south-east.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Businesses across the country are struggling with unaffordable energy costs. The burden of this Government’s national insurance contributions rise and uncertainty over the Employment Rights Bill are compounded by the immense struggle caused by sky-high energy bills. I urge the Government to act with more urgency in addressing energy costs for businesses, including through accelerating the launch of the industrial competitiveness scheme, the consultation for which is not even due to be launched until the end of the year. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to cut operating costs for businesses, and will the Government consider Liberal Democrat proposals to break the link between gas and energy prices, halving bills within a decade and easing pressures?
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Stuart, please—we do not read out the phone directory, and trying to do so in a topical does not work for you or me.
Blair McDougall
As I said to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), we are committed to ensuring not just that we work to maintain the post office network, but that we deal with some of those long-standing issues about the viability of the business going forward—issues that the Conservatives had 14 years to fix and did not.
North Sea Oil and Gas Industry
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks 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
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend makes an important point about building up the industries of the future. I have said on a number of occasions that we should rightly be proud of six decades of oil and gas in the north-east of Scotland, and we should be proud of the work that that workforce has achieved, but we should also recognise that we have been in transition for a long time. Building up the jobs of the future in carbon capture, hydrogen, offshore wind and supply chains is how we ensure a long-term, viable, sustainable future in the north-east—alongside oil and gas for many decades to come.
The particular work that the Scottish Government need to do in this space is about improving the skills offer so that more of Scotland’s young people can take up the 40,000 jobs we will create over the coming years. That is a huge opportunity for Scotland’s young people, but only if we improve Scotland’s education system.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
This is worrying news. Petrofac is one of the North sea’s largest offshore contractors, but it is entering administration today after years of financial difficulty. While I cannot share the desire of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) to ditch the Climate Change Act 2008, I do share his concern for those 2,000 jobs in Scotland and those workers who face uncertainty about their future, so the Secretary of State must act swiftly to find a sustainable path forward, hopefully secure a buyer and safeguard those skilled jobs.
This underlines why the Liberal Democrats have called for an independent just transition commission, putting oil and gas workers and local communities front and centre. It was good to see the much-awaited publication of the Government’s clean energy jobs plan last week. However, we know that job creation is not happening fast enough to keep up with job losses in the North sea, so can the Secretary of State and the Minister confirm what will be done to fill that gap in the meantime—in the short term—and to deliver a genuinely just transition that keeps those skilled workers powering Britain’s clean energy future?
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I have to say that this is a very underpowered urgent question. It is similar to a two-stroke engine attached to a rowing boat—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. When I decide on an urgent question, I do not need to be questioned about how urgent it is, or whether it is like a two-stroke engine or a 50 cc—actually, some of us think it might be a three litre.
Torcuil Crichton
I was, of course, referring to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who knows full well that he has missed the story here. Petrofac went into administration because the Dutch Government cut a contract for offshore wind farm developments. I dare say that that raises concerns about the viability for finance and the supply chain for the offshore wind farm industry, but as the Minister has pointed out, and as the shadow Minister well knows, Petrofac is successful in the UK. It has 2,000 jobs in the UK and it has contracts in the UK, so we need less scaremongering from this underpowered Opposition and more assurance from the Minister that he will look after those jobs.
Michael Shanks
I am in Aberdeen regularly and do meet constituents of the right hon. Member who work in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen as well as in oil and gas. It is his constituents who will benefit from the investments that Great British Energy will make, for example, which he failed to vote for, and who tell me that after a long period of having no credible plan—[Interruption.] He can shout me down all he wants; he asked a question—
Mr Speaker
Order. I brought the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) in early because I thought that was right for his constituents and because he had applied for an UQ, but I do expect a little respect, even if he does not like the answer.
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Member asks a serious question, and I am trying to give him an answer, if he would but listen for a few moments. We take the issue of job losses seriously—of course we do—but we have to recognise that over 70,000 jobs have been lost over the past 10 years because there has not been a credible plan on the future of the North sea. We are going to deliver that alongside new jobs in the energy future.
I also say to the right hon. Member that I am somewhat confused what the SNP’s policy is on this because, as far as I understood it, it is exactly the same as this Government’s policy, which is to look at the licensing position. If he is telling us now that the SNP’s position has changed, that is news to me and, I suspect, to the House, but of course, the SNP has not published the draft energy strategy, which has been in draft form for two years, so it is hard for anyone to know.
Jaguar Land Rover Cyber-attack
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 months, 1 week 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
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade to make a statement on the cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover and on what assistance the Government are giving to businesses to help protect them against cyber-attacks.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I fully recognise the anxiety and deep concern that employees at Jaguar Land Rover and across the supply chain will be feeling. The Government and the National Cyber Security Centre will do everything in our power to help resolve this as soon as possible. We are engaging with JLR on a daily basis to understand the challenges that the company and its suppliers are facing, and we are monitoring the situation closely. I have spoken to the company myself, and I will have a further meeting with the chief executive officer later this week. I understand that the company has also invited local MPs to a question and answer session this Friday.
The National Cyber Security Centre has been working with Jaguar Land Rover since last Wednesday to provide support in relation to the incident. I am sorry that there is a limit to what I can say on the specifics because I do not want to prejudice the ongoing investigations.
The cyber-security of the UK, however, is a key priority for the Government—crucial to protecting the public, our way of life and the successful growing economy. We have been taking significant action to help protect businesses against cyber-attacks. We are reducing cyber-risk across the economy by making technology more secure by design. That includes the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022, introduced by the previous Government, which requires manufacturers to build security into the manufacture and operation of internet-connected devices; the software security code of practice, which sets out how vendors and developers should make their software more secure; and the AI cyber-security code of practice, which sets out how AI developers should design and operate AI systems securely.
We are also providing businesses with the tools, advice and support to protect themselves from cyber-threats. That includes the cyber governance code of practice, which shows boards and directors how to effectively manage the digital risks to their organisations; the highly effective cyber essentials scheme to prevent common attacks, reducing the likelihood of a cyber insurance claim by 92%; and a wide range of free tools and support from the National Cyber Security Centre, including training for boards and staff, the “Check Your Cyber Security” tools to test IT systems for vulnerabilities, and the early warning system to get notified about cyber-threats to networks. I urge all businesses to take up these tools and improve their cyber-defences.
It is not for me to announce future business of the House, but when parliamentary time allows the Government will introduce the cyber-security and resilience Bill to raise cyber-security standards in critical and essential services, such as energy, water and the NHS.
Chris Bryant
First, I commend my hon. Friend on seeking this urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, on granting it. My hon. Friend makes the important point that Jaguar Land Rover is not only an iconic national brand, but a very significant employer—it employs 34,000 people in the UK, including in his constituency, and 39,000 worldwide. He is right that we need to ensure that cyber-security is something that every company in the land take seriously, and every public sector organisation. In my previous ministerial role I was conscious of the attack on the British Library, which was actually one of the most financially significant attacks heretofore, and it pointed the way for some of the other issues arising across the economy, which is why we have been keen to bring forward a Bill on this, as stated in the King’s Speech. We will introduce such a Bill “soon”—I think I can get away with that with the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House, although, in the words of Humpty Dumpty, when I use a word it means precisely what I choose it to mean, no more and certainly no less. As my hon. Friend says, there are serious issues that we need to address across the whole of the economy to ensure that we get this right.
My hon. Friend pointed to one person; I point to another—Richard Horne, the chief executive officer of the National Cyber Security Centre—who recently stressed that the UK faces increasingly hostile activity in cyber-space. We simply cannot afford any degree of complacency in this. There are major criminals operating in this space, as well as some malicious state actors, and some 40% of companies in the UK reported last year that they had faced some kind of cyber-attack. It is a very important issue that we take seriously.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) on securing this important urgent question. I welcome the Minister to his new role, although I will never be able to rival his literary quotations.
This attack on Jaguar Land Rover is extremely concerning. The impact on that world-leading business, and on its suppliers and workers, has been significant. I hope that the whole House agrees that we must use the full force of the state to crack down on cyber-criminals. I appreciate that the Minister is constrained in what he can say, but when were the Government and the National Cyber Security Centre informed of the attack? What kind of support are the Government and law enforcement agencies able to offer Jaguar Land Rover? How much longer do the Government expect the disruption, which is impacting on the supply of vehicles, to continue?
The attack is just another in a series against British brands and iconic institutions—the Minister says that 40% of our businesses have been affected—including the attack earlier this year on Marks & Spencer. Will he elaborate on what the Government are doing to prevent future attacks? Has he identified who is responsible for the attack? Can he rule out its being a state-sponsored attack? If the group responsible for the attacks on Jaguar Land Rover and Marks & Spencer are linked, what progress have law enforcement agencies made in pursuing them?
Chris Bryant
She is not; I will not welcome her to her new role, then—I welcome her to the Dispatch Box none the less. She asked a series of questions, and I will try to answer those that I can as precisely as possible.
First, the shadow Minister asked when the NCSC was notified and engaged. It has been engaged since last Wednesday. We have an undertaking that when people get in touch with the NCSC, the response will be very immediate.
The shadow Minister asked what engagement there is from the Government. The primary engagement is through the NCSC, which is fully engaged and devoted to the work. It is also in the public domain that the Information Commissioner’s Office was notified. I should clarify that that was not because JLR was certain that there had been a data breach, but it wanted to ensure that it had dotted every i and crossed every t, which is why it notified the Information Commissioner’s Office.
The shadow Minister asked about a timeline for getting this resolved. I wish that I could provide one, but I cannot. I think she will understand why: this is a very live situation that has been ongoing for a week. I note the points that JLR has been making. As I say, there will be an invitation for all local MPs—my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) should already have had one—for a Q&A session on Friday morning, when JLR hopes that it will be able to provide more information.
The shadow Minister asked what else we are doing. This summer, the Home Office undertook a consultation on our policy on ransomware. I am not saying that that relates specifically to this case—we do not know that yet and I am not coming to any foregone conclusions—but that is one of the things that we must address, and it was heartening to see resolute support from the vast majority of companies in the UK for our ransomware policy. Maybe we will come to that later.
The hon. Lady asked whether I can say who is responsible. I am afraid that I cannot. I note what is in the public domain, but I have no idea whether that is accurate and I do not want to impede the investigation. She asked whether the attack was state sponsored. Again, I do not want to jump to conclusions, and I can neither confirm nor deny anything. She also asked whether the case is linked with that of M&S. Again, I cannot answer that as fulsomely as I would wish, simply because I do not know, and I do not think anybody has come to any secure decisions on that. In one sense, all cyber-attacks are linked, in that it is the same problem, which is relatively new. The previous Government were seeking to tackle it, and we are seeking to tackle it in broadly the same way. Some of the techniques used are remarkably old-fashioned, such as ringing up helplines, which are designed to be helpful. That is exactly the same as when News of the World was ringing up mobile companies and trying to get PINs to hack other people’s phones. This is an old technique. The new bit is that sometimes people use AI-generated voices, which are remarkably accurate and can lead to further problems. I am not saying that that is what happened in this case, but some of the patterns are across the whole sector.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) on securing this urgent question, and warmly welcome the Minister to his new role. This is an extraordinarily serious issue, and the Business and Trade Committee will soon table its recommendations on tackling economic harms such as this. Many companies such as JLR now confront a much bigger threat surface, and the peril of state-backed threats. That is why this will be a much bigger issue in the future, and why companies in this country will need more than new laws. They will need new investment incentives to clean up legacy infrastructure that is currently not safe enough.
When we took evidence from Archie Norman and Marks & Spencer in the wake of that cyber-attack, we were given a distinct impression that more could have been done by agencies to help M&S. Will the Minister reassure the House that all the lessons from how the M&S case was handled have been learned, and that the state will bend over backwards to ensure that JLR has every assistance it needs to get back up and running, and to prosecute the guilty?
Chris Bryant
The single most important thing we can do is ensure that we end up prosecuting the guilty and that people are sent to prison, such as the gentleman—well, the person—in the United States of America who was recently sent down for 10 years as part of one of these networks, which was important. I am a Minister in the Department for Business and Trade, but the Minister for Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), and the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), who is on the Front Bench, are actively engaged in these discussions, and we must ensure a cross-Government approach. I look forward to what we will hear from the Business and Trade Committee. I was intrigued by what my right hon. Friend was saying about investment incentives, and I hope he might come up with some clever idea that we could put into practice once he has produced his report.
On the main point about whether we have learned all the lessons from M&S, I certainly think we have. I have read Archie Norman’s evidence to the Committee, and I hope that M&S has also learned the lessons that he laid bare. I hesitate in trying to make too immediate a connection between one case and another, because as my right hon. Friend will know, I do not want to prejudge what has happened in this particular set of circumstances.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I welcome the Minister to his new role. There has been a spate of cyber-attacks on important UK companies such as Jaguar Land Rover, on supermarkets and on the Legal Aid Agency. What are the Government doing to restore public and, just as importantly, international trust in the UK’s cyber-security networks? Do the Government think that the attacks have come from overseas?
Chris Bryant
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for all the work that she and I did together, particularly on space, in my old job and in hers. She was an excellent Minister to do business with, and I slightly fear having her on the Back Benches as she is a very redoubtable person. Many suppliers, including Evtec, WHS Plastics, Sertec, OPmobility and a series of others, are in an even more complex situation than Jaguar Land Rover, and I will try to co-ordinate the activity that we are doing in our Department to ensure that we provide every possible support to them. I note the tone in which my right hon. Friend said that MPs were getting a half-hour Zoom call on Friday. I will try to ensure that all MPs get the support they need, so that they can do the job of reassuring their constituents. Earlier today I made that point forcibly to JLR, and as I say, I intend to have a meeting with its chief executive later this week. When I possibly can I want to keep MPs updated, either individually in constituencies, or the whole House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on surviving the reshuffle. This Minister adds to the general merriment of the nation, so we will miss him when he’s gone—[Laughter.] We’re all mortal. May I ask a serious question about the public sector? As it happens, I am an enthusiast for the Prime Minister’s idea of a national digital ID card as a means of countering illegal working, but it raises a whole new spectre if tens of millions of people have an ID card on their mobile phone in their pocket and malign forces—Russia and elsewhere—seek to attack us. What work are the Government doing with their Bill and in the National Cyber Security Centre to try to get this right?
Chris Bryant
Ah, she is. I saw the nod. I am not sure how Hansard records a nod, other than the fact that I have now said it. The important point is making sure that everybody has an understanding that cyber-security is important to every single organisation, big or small, and the services of the state are there to help.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Minister talked about a cross-Government approach, and last week the Ministry of Defence stood up the cyber and specialist operations command, building on the foundations of strategic command and bringing together more than 26,000 specialists. Can the Minister comment on what collaboration exists between officials at the Department for Business and Trade and those working in this area in the MOD?
Chris Bryant
The primary relationship is between my Department, because we have responsibility for businesses and making sure that they can prosper in the future, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, as represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan) here, and the Minister for Security in the Home Office, but the hon. Member makes a good point. The MOD has an equal responsibility for ensuring that we are all secure.
Mr Speaker, I am sure that some kind of digital identification service will be available for identifying the right MP to call.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Always rear gunner. I am pleased to see the Minister in his position. It is well earned, and we are pleased to see him where he is. He will be aware that cyber-attacks on Marks & Spencer and Co-op have left many people concerned about the security of their information online. This attack on Jaguar will heighten those concerns, and businesses in my constituency have told me that. I have been contacted by people who are concerned about the ramifications of a cyber-attack on the Government’s systems, particularly in health. What discussions have been held with Cabinet colleagues on the robustness of cyber-defence, and what information can be shared with private businesses to help them defend themselves against these criminals that we all fear?
Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
I would like to make a statement regarding the insolvency of Speciality Steel UK Ltd, which is part of the Liberty Steel Group. Hon. Members will have seen that the High Court granted a compulsory winding-up order against Liberty Speciality Steels on 21 August, and the company has now entered liquidation.
First and foremost, let me say this: the Government stand with the affected steelworkers in Rotherham, in Sheffield and in Wednesbury. We stand with their families and the communities, who will undoubtedly be worried at this difficult time. I would like to reassure them and all those employed by Liberty Speciality Steels that we are standing by with our rapid response teams to give immediate support on the ground if required, that we are working with the trade unions and the South Yorkshire Mayor, and that we are working with the councils and hon. Members from affected constituencies to offer all the help we can.
I also want to stress that there will be no immediate changes to the current operation of the business, including to employees’ jobs. Following the appointment of special managers, the company’s sites have been secured and employee payroll processed within 24 hours. Other Liberty Steel companies outside Speciality Steel, such as Liberty Dalzell and Liberty Hartlepool, are not affected by this action.
Following the company’s liquidation, the official receiver has been appointed as liquidator by the court. Hon. Members will know that the official receiver operates independently of Government, with a statutory duty to act in the best interests of creditors.
Yesterday, I laid a departmental minute notifying the House of the contingent liabilities associated with this intervention. I regret that, due to the liquidation taking place during recess, we have not been able to follow the usual notice period of 14 parliamentary sitting days. However, a copy of the departmental minute will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. In addition, the Government have agreed to funding for the official receiver, who will now stabilise operations. The official receiver will gather company information and report to us on the likely next steps, including options for the company’s business and sites. The total costs will depend on market conditions and the strategy adopted by the official receiver. However, that will be subject to close scrutiny by my Department and the Insolvency Service.
As the House will be aware, the company has faced severe financial and operational difficulties since 2021. Liberty Speciality Steels had failed to file accounts for over six years—a failure that has led to a separate prosecution by Companies House of its parent company. I am sure that the official receiver will want to gain a better understanding of the company’s business and the conduct of its directors leading up to the liquidation. I also inform the House that the director of the company is currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office for suspected fraud, fraudulent trading and money laundering. Given that, I am sure hon. Members will agree that it would have been wholly inappropriate for the Government to enter into commercial arrangements with the company.
This Government will always take difficult decisions when they are in the national interest. That is why, in April, we acted to prevent the pre-emptive closure of the blast furnaces at British Steel in Scunthorpe. In the case of Liberty Steel, the lack of transparency, the legal and financial risks and the complete absence of reliable corporate information meant we had no credible route to act before insolvency. It is worth noting that Liberty Speciality Steels uses electric arc furnace technology that can be powered up or down as needed—although it should be noted that those furnaces have not been operating since July of last year. That was the situation this Government inherited.
The circumstances in Scunthorpe were fundamentally different. British Steel operates the UK’s last remaining blast furnaces—assets that, once shut down, cannot simply be restarted. Allowing those blast furnaces to be closed pre-emptively would have removed our ability to make strategic choices about the future of steelmaking in Scunthorpe, and that was not a position this Government were prepared to accept. Scunthorpe was therefore a truly exceptional situation and that is why we took the unprecedented step of implementing the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 to maintain the safe operation of the blast furnaces.
The situation with Liberty Speciality Steels is not comparable. The company was issued with a winding-up order by the High Court due to longstanding financial issues. Spending taxpayers’ money on a company operating in such a way would have exposed taxpayers to hundreds of millions—potentially billions—of pounds in hidden costs.
With all that said, I very much believe that the steelmaking sites in Rotherham, Stocksbridge, Brinsworth and Wednesbury have a future. I am keen to see them return to production, but that has to be achieved through private investment by an owner who can invest in the workforce and in the future of the business so that they put it on a long-term, sustainable footing. We know that the business environment has not been good enough for the UK’s steel industry, which is why we have already made substantial changes to secure a stronger future for it. I will say more about the steps that we have taken shortly.
In the case of Liberty Speciality Steels, it goes without saying that the company’s hardworking employees are key to turning the sites around. Their skills and expertise will be essential in delivering that brighter future. However, in its current state, producing only minimal volumes of steel and with many employees still on furlough, we know that some tough choices lie ahead. It is now for the official receiver to determine the next steps in the insolvency process. But let me be clear: this Government will stand by this workforce and do all we can to support them through this period of uncertainty.
Despite the challenges facing the steel sector today after years of neglect under the previous Government, we believe that this industry will bounce back and grow stronger tomorrow. This Government are doing everything we can to make that happen. We are pressing ahead with a bold steel strategy for the UK, set to be published later this year. That strategy will set out our vision for a competitive, decarbonised and resilient domestic steel industry. Our approach is clear: we want the UK steel sector to thrive, with strong private investment and commercially sustainable operations at its core.
Under our new industrial strategy, we have already announced some major policy changes to increase the future viability of the steel industry. We are reducing electricity costs for steel producers by increasing network charge discounts through the supercharger from 60% to 90%. We are changing Government procurement rules via the publication of a new steel public procurement notice to ensure that UK-made steel is considered for all public projects. We are also strengthening current steel safeguard measures, ensuring that UK steel producers will not be undercut while still ensuring that the UK has a steady and reliable supply.
Hon. Members will know that we have also secured a much-improved deal for the workers of Port Talbot—something the Opposition repeatedly said could never be achieved—and we delivered it alongside a £500 million grant to support the transition to low-carbon electric arc furnace production. I was proud to attend the groundbreaking event for this in July with the chair of Tata Group. We will continue to work hand in hand with this vital British industry to ensure its long-term success.
Let there be no doubt that, for Liberty Speciality Steels, we will pursue every option to keep steelmaking in Rotherham, Sheffield, South Yorkshire and the west midlands. We will offer all possible support to the independent official receiver on the all-important next phase, and we will continue to work with hon. Members across the House to ensure that the UK remains a proud steelmaking country now and for many years to come. I commend this statement to the House.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving me advance sight of her statement today, but here we are again: another day, another Government takeover of a key British manufacturing plant, another 1,500 jobs—1,500 people—facing an incredibly uncertain future, and the prospect of significant job losses alongside the wider economic impact across supply chains and in aerospace, defence and power generation that would result from the collapse of this specialist steelworks.
Despite so many warm words about the steel industry, despite so many Labour promises to the people who have worked their whole lives in that industry, and despite the impression of superiority while in opposition, this Labour Government are failing British industry. They are failing to provide certainty of policy and the economic growth that they said was their central mission, and they are failing to get a grip on the issues that affect thousands of working people’s lives. The Minister says she wants to provide certainty to the steel industry and the people who work in it. She says that we can expect a bold steel strategy for the UK, but where is it? The Government are not new any more; they have been in power for a year now, and there is still no clarity on this supposedly bold strategy.
The British steel industry faces a fierce dual set of pressures: new 25% US tariffs and continued high energy costs. We all know that the energy costs in this country are too high, yet they have been driven only higher by this Government’s ideological obsession with prioritising decarbonisation over economic growth. Back in May, Liberty Steel warned that it faced significant challenges due to soaring energy costs, but instead of focusing on tackling the underlying causes of expensive energy, the Energy Secretary is backing windmills while leaving Britain’s oil and gas industry in the doldrums. He is leaving our amazing British oil and gas—our greatest energy source—trapped under the North sea. This is economic illiteracy aimed at satisfying their own green obsessions. From steel to chemicals to cars, builders and makers across Britain are paying the price of this Government’s socialist green agenda, and it is their workers and investors who will lose out.
On tariffs, despite the economic prosperity deal agreed by the Prime Minister and President Trump, the agreement’s provisions lowering US tariffs on UK-produced steel and steel derivative products have still not come into effect. The Government have repeatedly avoided answering questions in this House on when the agreement will come into effect. We heard no mention whatsoever of it in the statement today or in the note yesterday, so I ask again: when will the provisions lowering US tariffs on UK steel come into effect?
Of course, even if those provisions do eventually come to fruition, steelworkers should beware of this Government, who have overpromised and under-delivered before, with devastating impacts for workers. Just look at Jaguar Land Rover. The Prime Minister looked workers dead in the eyes and promised that he would protect their industry and save their jobs. He then used those workers as a Labour propaganda photo opportunity across television and the front pages when the UK-US deal was announced, but little over two months later, Jaguar Land Rover announced it was cutting 500 jobs. The very same workers who were promised everything by the Prime Minister were left out in the cold by this Labour Government’s inability to secure a better trading relationship with our closest ally.
Let us today try to get some clarity on what exactly this Minister has done and will do for the British workers impacted at Liberty Steel. First, she announced that the Government had agreed to funding the official receiver and that total—
Mr Speaker
Order—[Interruption.] No, it’s no use nodding at me. I have not gone over time; it is the shadow Minister himself. I am sure he is now coming to a conclusion.
Gareth Davies
I am, Mr Speaker. Although I have lots of questions, I will ask just two very quick ones, if that is okay.
Gareth Davies
I will, Mr Speaker.
What is the budget for the official receiver? The Minister has not laid out any costs. She has said that it is related to market conditions but has not set out any estimates. She knows that the Treasury will have approved estimates, so please will she set those out? The Government have made the National Wealth Fund allocate £2.5 billion to British Steel. Can she assure us that they will follow the investment allocation that assures its operational independence—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, it is not acceptable on either side of the House to take advantage of the Back Benchers who want to get in. You have a set amount of time. If the Minister can stick to it, I expect the shadow Minister to do so. If the Minister goes over time, I do then grant time the other way. Please do not do this again.
Let us come to the Chair of the Select Committee.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister needs to respond. It’s been that long that I had forgotten.
Sarah Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall just explain to the shadow Minister how the system works. The Government have not taken over control. That is not the process of the official receiver. The official receiver was appointed following a court case which began in 2024. It has been a very long and arduous case.
The hon. Gentleman will hopefully understand that I cannot set out the cost of the official receiver at this point because the official receiver has only just begun his work. It is very early days and we cannot be specific. We know the numbers will be in the millions, as opposed to anything more substantial, because the company is not operating in and of itself. What we are doing is ensuring that the salaries are paid, which I hope the whole House would agree is the right thing to do. Companies will be coming forward and expressing an interest in buying parts of the company, and it will be for the official receiver to look at that and see what process we should go through, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the actual numbers on that. I hope the whole House will understand why not.
On the shadow Minister’s wider point, if this Government had not intervened, thousands of people would have lost their livelihoods in Scunthorpe; that is a fact. If this Government had not intervened, we would not have had a better deal for the workers in Port Talbot, we would not have been there supporting them in the transition, and we would not be there supporting the building of the electric arc furnace, which began back in July.
The shadow Minister asked what this Government have already done. We have already changed the rules on procurement. I have worked closely with colleagues in the Cabinet Office on that to ensure that where Government are spending money, we are spending on British business where we can—something his Government failed to do. On energy prices, we have committed to lowering prices through the reduction in costs that will come from the expansion of the super-charger—something his Government failed to do. We are working on a bold strategy, which we will publish this year, that will build on that. Whether on trade protections—on which we have already taken measures—our scrap policy, R&D, jobs, apprenticeships or skills, we will have a bold strategy because we believe in steel, unlike the previous Government, who said that manufacturing is a Victorian pursuit best left to the Chinese. We do not agree with that approach.
Sarah Jones
I thank my right hon. Friend for those helpful questions. He reminded me that the shadow Minister had asked about the US. Of course, we are in a position where the world has tariffs of 50% on steel and aluminium; we have 25%. We are working with our US counterparts to reach a conclusion to those negotiations. My right hon. Friend will know that the President is due to come to the UK and, of course, we will be doing all we can to get that negotiation concluded at pace.
My right hon. Friend asked about energy costs. We are seeking to ensure that there is a viable steel industry into the future and that those companies currently talking to the official receiver about wanting to take over and invest in Liberty can do so in a way that will make them money. On the charges we are reducing—the 60% to 90% super-charger extension for network charge relief—to give an example, it will mean about £4 to £5 relief per tonne of steel produced. We know that Liberty is not producing what it can at the moment, but two or three years ago it would have been producing about 300 tonnes of steel per year, so it would have saved up to £1.5 million on its energy costs. That is a substantial reduction and something that I am sure he will welcome.
On the liabilities, of course we want to be as honest, open and transparent with the House as we possibly can. A lot of the liabilities are with the creditors at the moment. We want to come to the House as soon as we can to ensure that we are setting out the costs that we incur. My right hon. Friend is right that the steel strategy this year needs to be bold, and we will of course look to the work that his Committee has done to help us in that.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
May I start by associating the Liberal Democrats with the Minister’s remarks in support of the employees, families and communities who are affected by this latest development? We welcome the Minister’s coming to the House today to provide some clarity.
Steel is a sector of huge strategic importance for our country. It provides vital materials for our national infrastructure, from defence to renewable energy, and it creates thousands of jobs across the UK. The neglect of the steel industry in recent years is just another part of the previous Government’s disastrous legacy. With Putin’s barbaric war in Europe and Donald Trump’s damaging tariffs causing economic turmoil, securing the future of steel production in this country is more important than ever. That is why the Liberal Democrats firmly believe that nothing should be off the table in supporting this critical sector.
For too long, our steel industry has been neglected. The Conservative Government oversaw a string of near collapses and last-minute deals. They scrapped the industrial strategy, which is so vital to our manufacturers, and put in place new trade barriers, which constrained our exporters. In the light of this latest insolvency, will the Minister set out what actions the Government are taking to set our steel industry on a truly sustainable footing? What reassurance can the Government provide that job losses can be avoided in the future? What progress has been made in bringing down industrial electricity prices through the measures announced in the industrial strategy? What are the Government doing to press President Trump to finally drop his damaging 25% tariffs on our steel exports? Finally, what steps are the Government taking to treat steel as the nationally strategic asset that it is, ensuring that more British-made steel is used to power our national infrastructure and other major projects here in the UK?
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The Minister was right to come here today to make a statement on such an important part of the national infrastructure. It is just a shame that no Minister has ever made a statement in this House on Grangemouth. We have now learned that the Chancellor met INEOS chair Jim Ratcliffe just three weeks ago—just three weeks before Petroineos Grangemouth closed—but she did not do so much as raise the refinery with him. In her statement, the Minister said: “the Government stand with the affected steelworkers in Rotherham, in Sheffield and in Wednesbury. We stand with their families”. That is quite right; so do we in the SNP. But why have this Labour Government never stood with the workers of Grangemouth?
Mr Speaker
It is up to the Minister to answer that question if she wants to, but the statement is about steel, rather than petroleum.
Sarah Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will just say that we have very much stood with the workers of Grangemouth. We are investing, through the National Wealth Fund, £200 million to support that development. I have had multiple conversations, and the hon. Gentleman and I have spoken multiple times in this place, about how we will support industry in Grangemouth to transition and grow, and provide significant support to workers where they lose jobs. I fundamentally disagree with the picture that he paints.
Parental Leave Review
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s manifesto commitment to review the system of entitlements to parental leave.
This Government are dedicated to delivering more for working families, and our plan to make work pay is central to achieving that, with the mission to grow the economy, raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all. It will help people to stay in work, improve job security and boost living standards, which includes helping working parents and supporting them to balance their work and home lives.
Parental leave and pay entitlements play a key role in that. We know that the arrival of a child, whether through birth or adoption, is a transformative time in a family’s life. We also know that the current parental leave system does not support modern, diverse working families as well as it could. Parents’ groups and campaigners have long argued that our paternity leave is too short and compares poorly with other countries. While shared parental leave is available to families where fathers and partners want to take a longer period of leave, evidence shows that take-up is very low, with the parental rights survey reporting that 1% of mothers and 4% of fathers use this entitlement. The survey also showed that 35% of fathers do not take paternity leave for financial reasons.
We are committed to improving the parental leave system and are already taking action. Improving the system will have the added benefit of increasing workforce participation by helping employers to fill vacancies and will contribute to increased productivity, benefiting the economy.
The Employment Rights Bill is one vehicle through which we are improving the parental leave system. The Bill makes paternity leave and parental leave day one rights, meaning that employees will be eligible to give notice of their intent to take leave from their first day of employment. It contains a number of other measures that will improve the support that working families receive. It will put in place legislation that makes it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave and mothers who come back to work for a six-month period after they return, except in specific circumstances. It will also make flexible working the default, except where it is not reasonably feasible, and requires that all large employers produce action plans that contribute to closing the gender pay gap.
I am pleased to announce that the Government are going further and taking another step forward in delivering improvements for working families. I am pleased to launch the parental leave review today, fulfilling our commitment in the plan to make work pay to review the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports working families. The review is part of delivering the plan for change, and links two of the Government’s missions: kick-starting economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity. The work of the review will support the Government’s commitments to raise living standards and give children the best start in life, and links to work being undertaken to alleviate child poverty. It presents a much-needed opportunity to consider our approach to the system of parental leave and pay, giving due consideration to balancing costs and benefits to both businesses and the Exchequer. I welcome the opportunity today to provide the House with more detail on the review.
The review will be co-led by the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Work and Pensions, the two Departments with the main responsibility for the current parental leave framework. There will, however, be close working across Government to deliver this review to reflect the wide influence the parental leave system has on policies in other Departments.
The current system has grown up gradually over time. The first maternity arrangements were set out in the Factory and Workshop Act 1891, which introduced the idea that women who work in factories cannot work for four weeks after giving birth. Subsequent entitlements have been added to support specific groups as needs have emerged, which has created a framework that does not always work cohesively as a whole. This piecemeal approach to parental leave and pay means that the system has never had an overarching set of objectives that it should deliver. This review presents an opportunity to reset our approach to and understanding of parental leave and pay, and what we want the system to achieve.
We will use the review to establish what Britain needs from a parental leave and pay system to support our modern economy and deliver improvements for working families. We have set out four objectives as our starting point, which we intend to test as we progress the review to ensure we are truly reflecting the needs of the nation.
Our first objective is to support the physical and mental health of women during pregnancy and after giving birth to a child. Our second objective is to support economic growth by enabling more parents to stay in work and advance in their careers after starting a family. This will focus on improving both women’s labour market outcomes and tackling the gender pay gap.
Our third objective is to ensure that there are sufficient resources and time away from work to support new and expectant parents’ wellbeing. This will include facilitating the best start in life for babies and young children, and supporting health and development outcomes. Our fourth objective is to support parents to make balanced childcare choices that work for their family situation, including enabling co-parenting, and providing flexibility to reflect the realities of modern work and childcare needs.
Three cross-cutting considerations will also be factored into our review. The first is to build a fair parental leave system between parents within a family, different types of parents and parents with different employment statuses. The second consideration is to balance costs and benefits to businesses and the Exchequer, as well as to examine how the system can support economic opportunities for businesses and families. As part of this, the review will consider opportunities to make the process surrounding parental leave simpler for both businesses and parents. The final cross-cutting consideration focuses on improving our society—for example, by supporting the child poverty strategy, and by shifting social and gender norms, including around paternal childcare.
All current and upcoming parental leave and pay entitlements will be in the scope of the review. This will enable us to consider how the parental leave and pay system should operate as a complete system to improve the support available for working families. This broad scope means that the review will consider the individual existing entitlements, and how best to ensure improvements can be delivered for working families, as well as related wider issues and themes. For example, the review will consider whether the support available meets the needs of other working families who do not qualify for existing statutory leave and pay entitlements, such as kinship carers and self-employed parents. It will also consider how the pay system works more broadly.
This will be an evidence-based review that reflects and considers the perspectives and experiences of those who engage with the parental leave and pay system. We welcome views from, and intend to engage constructively with, a wide range of external stakeholders, including groups such as trade unions that represent both parents and families, and employers or employer representatives. There will be opportunities for stakeholders to contribute views and expertise throughout the review, including through a call for evidence, which launches today. This call for evidence seeks initial evidence specifically in relation to the objectives that will set the foundation for what we want our system to deliver.
The review launches today. We expect it to run for a period of 18 months. The Government will conclude the review with a set of findings and a road map, including next steps for taking any potential reforms forward to implementation. This is an important step forward to ensure that our workplaces are fit for the 21st century, and I commend this statement to the House.
Justin Madders
I take it that the shadow Minister is not in support of the review. May I correct him on a few points? Of course it is not a coincidence that this is being announced today; our manifesto was clear that we would launch the review within one year of taking office, and, of course, this week we do celebrate that astounding election victory. On his point about statutory paternity pay, it is £187.18. We know from representations that we have already received that many do not think that that is the right level. He mentioned how Tony Blair and Gordon Brown refused to open this box, but it was their Government who gave us the right to statutory paternity pay and a number of other family-friendly rights, of which the shadow Minister himself has taken advantage.
I think we know where the Conservative party stands on these issues when their leader says that maternity pay has gone too far. I do not quite know what she meant by that, but I think it means that the Conservatives would be rolling back some of the well-earned gains in family-friendly policies.
The shadow Minister, as I would expect, does not miss an opportunity to mention the Employment Rights Bill. May I suggest that he has a word with his shadow Secretary of State who clearly has not read it? I refer to his recent open letter to businesses in which he mentioned a number of issues with the Bill. First, he complained that we are creating the fair work agency, conveniently forgetting that in both the 2017 and 2019 Conservative party manifestos, there was a similar pledge to create a single enforcement body. He referred to an introductory measure on electronic industrial action balloting. The Conservatives, of course, will be big fans of electronic voting given the number of leadership elections in which they have taken part in recent years. The shadow Minister needs to inform his shadow Secretary of State that that is not in the Bill. I do not know where he thinks that has come from. We are going to introduce electronic balloting, but it is not in the Employment Rights Bill, because we already have existing powers to implement it.
In that open letter, the shadow Secretary of State mentions, most curiously, that the Bill will include
“a trade union ‘right to roam’”.
I do not know if he was searching for a new mobile phone contract at the time, but no such right exists.
The shadow Minister talked about the effects on appointments, but he needs to keep up to date: the latest Lloyds business barometer says that business confidence is now at a nine-year high and that 60% of firms expect higher staffing levels in the next year. That is a sign that this Government are getting things done.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is great to see so many hon. Members, with almost every party represented but one: there are four empty seats where the Reform UK MPs sit. They like to bang on about family values, but when it comes to actually standing up for dads and for parents, they are nowhere to be seen.
I thank the Minister for acting on the importance of shared parental leave. On paternity leave, as someone who had a caesarean section, I was so grateful to my husband’s employers for granting him more than two weeks’ leave; as everyone knows, mothers are not meant to lift even a kettle for six weeks after a c-section, which makes things impossible. However, we also know that not everybody is that fortunate, and that is especially true for self-employed people. The Women and Equalities Committee took evidence on parental leave and heard that nearly a third of self-employed dads and other parents did not take a single day’s leave following the birth of their child, so how will this review ensure that self-employed parents’ needs will be taken into account?
Justin Madders
I thank the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee for her contribution. She raises an important point and we are studying her Committee’s recent report on the issue with interest. It is important that we look at how people in different forms of employment are able to take advantage of parental leave, in one form or another. That is important not just for providing physical assistance in the circumstances that my hon. Friend mentioned, but because the parent should be there, if they can, to bond with the child in those early weeks, and the review will definitely consider that.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to the much-needed review on parental leave. Every child deserves the best possible start in life and the opportunity to flourish, no matter their background or personal circumstances. Too often, parents struggle on inadequate parental pay and without good enough access to shared leave. Childcare costs are eye-watering, and the balance between family life and work has only become harder to strike.
The Liberal Democrats have been calling for an overhaul of the parental leave system, to give parents a genuine choice about how they manage their responsibilities in the first months of their child’s life. If I could gently correct the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), it was the Liberal Democrats who were proud to introduce shared parental leave in government. However, years later, millions of parents are still being denied the choice to spend more time at home, with around a quarter of fathers ineligible for paternity pay.
As we welcome this review into parental leave, I urge the Government to look more broadly into the prevalent inequality in caring responsibilities. What steps are they taking to support the millions of family carers who are looking after disabled or elderly relatives and who have no paid leave at all? Will they commit to a similar review into provision for unpaid carers and to make carer’s leave paid? Will they commit to reviewing the needs of carers and those of the families who have taken on kinship caring responsibilities? I welcome that commitment in the statement today, but do the Government plan to introduce statutory kinship care leave?
We call on the Government to use the review to finally deliver meaningful reforms that address the long-standing concerns of carers and their loved ones, as well as making changes to the circumstances of working families that can make parenting a joy rather than a burden, and end the dilemma of having to choose between work and family.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The gov.uk website, which has not been updated since 8 May, states that the Prime Minister negotiated the 25% steel tariff down to zero, but that is not right, is it? Steel faces a tariff of 25% today and runs the risk of a 50% tariff being imposed next month. Will the Minister take this opportunity to commit to updating the website, updating this House and updating steelworkers on the state of the negotiations?
Mr Alexander
I am very happy to consider the issues that the hon. Lady raises in relation to the website, but I can assure her that, whether it is the Minister for Industry or the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the Government are in constant dialogue with the British steel industry. We will introduce a steel strategy, unlike her predecessors, and we have put serious money behind it. Thanks to the economic prosperity deal with the United States, the UK was the only country to be made exempt from the 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium that other countries around the world now face.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have long called for a closer trading relationship with Europe after the disastrous negotiations by the previous Conservative Government. We welcomed last month’s new trade agreement, including an agrifood deal establishing a UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary zone. The EU is our largest agrifood market, but since Brexit exports are down by 21% and imports are down by 7%. The introduction of an SPS agreement will provide welcome relief to many businesses by reducing costs through the removal of border checks and reducing many certificate requirements, such as for export health certificates. However, businesses and producers cannot plan without clarity, so will the Minister set out a timeline on when we can expect the SPS deal to be implemented?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there are so many echoes of the minimum wage debate, it is uncanny. As time has shown, the minimum wage has raised living standards in this country and it is something we are very proud to have implemented. We are looking to bring more investment across the economy. Recent surveys have shown that business confidence is increasing as a result of decisions made by this Labour Government.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) made clear earlier, the ONS statistics are very clear: 109,000 fewer on payroll in May alone and 276,000 fewer since the autumn Budget. As UKHospitality points out, the NICs changes were
“felt most intensely by foundational sectors like hospitality,”
which “necessitates an urgent review”.
My question to the Minister is simple: where will his red line sit? How many more jobs have to come off payroll before the Department for Business and Trade will stand up to the Treasury on this? Another 100,000? A million? Where is the line?
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on the need for face-to-face banking in communities and high streets up and down the country. We are committed to working with the banks to roll out 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament, but we also think that the Post Office can do more to help to improve access to banking services. On the particular issue in his constituency, if it would be helpful, I would be very happy to sit down and talk to him about what else he might be able to do to secure a banking hub for his constituents.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Retail Jobs Alliance is very clear in its warning that the Government’s changes to business rates will
“accelerate the decline of high streets, reducing footfall…and creating a cycle of economic downturn.”
That letter was also signed by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—a Labour-affiliated trade union. Once again, the Minister and the Department for Business and Trade have a choice. Will they stand up for high street retailers, actual employers and even their own affiliated trade union, or will they just go along with Treasury diktat?
Sarah Jones
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are doing what we can to unlock the planning challenges that people have faced for many years in a whole range of areas. We are introducing legislation to do that, and making several changes. I obviously cannot comment on specific planning proposals in his area, but he should be reassured that we are doing what we can to encourage growth.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
We have been promised a modern industrial strategy for nearly a year. First, it was going to be with us in the spring; then it was going to be published at the spending review; and now it will be here “shortly”. The industrial strategy seems to be a strategy to clobber industry with higher taxes and higher business rates. Will the modern industrial strategy have greater longevity than the Office for Investment? It was announced in October, and we were not given an update until last Thursday, when it launched. Yesterday, we were told in the spending review that it is now being restructured. What is the future for the Office for Investment?
Sarah Jones
I can guarantee the hon. Lady that our industrial strategy will have a longer shelf life than hers did; I think it lasted 18 months—I am not entirely sure. We forget, because it did not have much of an impact. We have worked with all industries across the country to put together a comprehensive package that will make it easier to do business in the UK, and support our city regions and clusters across the country, where we have excellent industry. It will turbocharge the eight growth sectors, and it will make the Government more agile in interacting with business. That is why we are reforming the Office for Investment, as we have always said we will. It is now a significantly more substantial organisation, and will give significantly more support. The hon. Lady should look at—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am really bothered, because we have only got to question 8, and I still need to call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats welcome yesterday’s announcements from the Chancellor on investment in public infrastructure projects. However, the general secretary of the Prospect trade union has warned that the UK lacks the skilled workers required for the new defence and nuclear projects outlined by the Chancellor. Similarly, Make UK and the Federation of Small Businesses have highlighted that a shortage of skilled workers would be a critical stumbling block for growth. As we continue to await the much-anticipated industrial strategy, why are the Government moving funding away from level 7 apprenticeships, when we know that they support social mobility? More broadly, why did they not seize the opportunity in yesterday’s statement to commit to fixing the apprenticeship levy, to ensure that money is invested in skills and training?
Sarah Jones
Forgive me for my long answers, Mr Speaker, but there is a lot to talk about in the industrial strategy, and I like to talk about it. The hon. Lady raises an important point. There is a significant skills challenge, and we will not shy away from it. Yesterday, £1.2 billion for skills was announced in the spending review. We have announced £600 million for construction skills, because that is a big issue for building the infrastructure that we need. We know we need to go further, and we are working closely with industry on how we can use the resources we have to recruit the welders, engineers—
Mr Speaker
Order. If there is so much to say, the Minister should bring forward a statement, or let us have a debate on this very important subject. I do not know how she will explain to MPs that they will not get in, because I am now going to topicals.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Yes, I can reaffirm that position. As she says, the Foreign Secretary announced on 20 May that we have suspended negotiations on an upgraded free trade agreement with Israel in response to the egregious actions of the Netanyahu Government in Gaza and the west bank. Of course, the UK has existing business relationships with Israel that are not affected by that decision, and we maintain trade envoys with both Israel and the Palestinian territories. What we all want is peace, a two-state solution and a strong UK relationship with both states.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Postmasters who were hit by the Horizon scandal will be concerned to hear Sir Alan Bates describe the compensation process as a “quasi-kangaroo court”. Can the Minister reassure postmasters about the redress that they are due, and reassure taxpayers about the redress that he is seeking from Fujitsu?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and she is absolutely right to draw attention to the continuing need to speed up compensation to sub-postmasters. Since we came into government, we have increased fourfold the amount of compensation paid to sub-postmasters, but there is an awful lot more to do. On the issues that Sir Alan Bates raised, the hon. Lady will know that under the group litigation order scheme, through which his compensation issues are being addressed, there are various independent points on the journey at which to consider the offer—
Mr Speaker
Order. If Ministers do not want Members to get in, please will they say so, because they are taking all the time from Back Benchers, which is really unfair to them? Back Benchers have put forward their names and come here to ask questions, and Ministers are just enjoying themselves too much.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
Gareth Thomas
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Through our small business strategy, we will set out very shortly further plans to support businesses to get on the high street. The increase in money in the British Business Bank, announced yesterday by the Chancellor, will also significantly increase access to finance for such businesses.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Justin Madders
We had a Westminster Hall debate last week in which a number of these issues were raised. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are undertaking our fourth review of the GCA. I encourage him and other hon. Members to contribute to it. We are considering the points made in that debate, and we will welcome any comments in the review.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I very much welcome yesterday’s investment in UK energy abundance, but as our Committee pointed out on Friday, the success of the industrial strategy will depend on a plan to cut industrial energy costs now. When the industrial strategy is published, will the Secretary of State reassure us that there will be a plan to ensure that UK energy prices are internationally competitive?
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I welcome the UK-India trade deal, which is good for salmon and good for whisky. Will the Secretary of State use his muscle to ensure that a chain of small distilleries in my constituency and across Scotland can sell a wee dram to India, as well as the big brands?
Mr Speaker, I would like to draw the House’s attention to reports of a crash on take-off of a London-bound Air India flight from India today, and allow the Secretary of State to express our concern.
Mr Speaker
It is very important, and I think the Leader of the House will make reference to it when we get to business questions—if we get there.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for updating the House on that matter. He will know that one of the brilliant things about the UK-India deal is that it is not just for the higher-value, iconic products we are all familiar with; for bulk, there is no minimum price in the deal. The deal is incredibly strong for every bit of the whisky—and gin—industry in the United Kingdom.
I am alert to the news my hon. Friend has just shared, and colleagues will update the House.
Jonathan Reynolds
That is an area of concern to us all. We support and continue to implement some of the listing rules and prospective changes of the previous Government, but the bigger change from this Government is to liquidity, particularly around pensions reforms. None the less, this remains an issue of key competitiveness for the United Kingdom.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Eastbourne businesses Qualisea, Gianni’s and Gr/eat are up in arms, as I am, that East Sussex county council’s shambolic management of the Victoria Place pedestrianisation means that works will now fall in the summer, their busiest trading period. What provision will Ministers make to ensure that businesses hit by such disruption can be properly compensated?
Gareth Thomas
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not have the details of that specific case, but if he wants to write to me I will happily look into it.