Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban
Matt Western Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
I think my hon. Friend must have misheard, or maybe I misspoke in some way, because I am saying very clearly that there are four things we could do and are seriously considering doing. The important thing is that, where there are challenges, we need to overcome them. It is not that they become an excuse for inaction.
Chris Bryant
I will just go through the third and fourth points, because they are important.
The third thing we could do and are seriously considering is banning exports of UK services to the illegal settlements. To my mind, it must be completely wrong for a UK business to enable the construction of a block of flats or a road, for instance, in the settlements, by providing finance, insurance, architectural services, logistical support or, as has been referred to in the debate, selling properties in the illegal settlements. All of that is a perfectly legitimate area where we should consider banning exports of UK services to the settlements. Likewise, the fourth area we are considering taking action on is banning imports to the UK of services from the settlements.
Chris Bryant
Just one more moment, and I then I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) would like to intervene first.
Members are absolutely right that other countries are either considering or are in the process of introducing a variety of different bans. As the Middle East Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has said, we have had conversations with some of them. Some are expressing concerns about whether what they are going to do will actually be effective. Sometimes I am all for declaratory legislation, but I am much more in favour of doing things that actually take effect. That is one of the key considerations for us.
Let me be absolutely clear: I do not think that any of the legal or logistical problems is insurmountable. We are actively considering what a trade ban that directly targets illegal settlements would look like.
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman asks, from a sedentary position, by when? I think my timeline may be rather limited in this post, but as Tagore said:
“The one who plants trees, knowing that he will never sit in their shade, has at least started to understand the meaning of life.”
I have been trying to progress some of this work. We have not got to a place where we are able to announce anything yet, but that is why I am saying we are actively considering it.
Chris Bryant
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I do want to leave some time for my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central.
I just have a couple more points to make. Any measures must be enforceable, effective and not have unintended consequences on our legitimate trade, for instance in medicines, with green-line Israel. The worst of all possible outcomes would be measures that are morally declaratory but ineffective or ineffectual, and that are not capable of being implemented.
There are several routes we could go down. Members have mentioned the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. There was a set of suggestions, not all that different from some of the ideas that have come up to us already, from the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Liberal Democrats. That is an option available to us, but there are other routes we might want to explore.
I really wish that I were able to say more today, but it really is not words that are needed. I fully understand and have heard very clearly, as have the whole of the Government, that it is action that is needed. I am tempted to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) because he is very keen, but he will have to be very quick.
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend, while he is still in post. Very briefly, he will be aware of the mockery that is the situation with dual-use goods between Israel and the Palestinian territories. Surely we can have some sort of ban on the products we are supplying that are essentially enabling civilisational erasure in Palestine?
Chris Bryant
I will write to my hon. Friend in answer to that point, as I am very keen to let my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central speak.
As I said, it is not words that are needed on this issue, but actions. I very much hope those might be imminent.
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents
Matt Western Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about leaseholders being treated with contempt. I have an estate in my constituency, Bishops Gate, where it took three years for FirstPort to respond to residents’ requests, and even when the council got involved, FirstPort refused its request. Given all the service charges they had paid in, the homeowners believed that there would be £230,000 in the account; in fact, there is zero, and they are told that there is £60,000 of debt. That is the sort of scam that is going on.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that example; colleagues across the Chamber will probably cite similar, if not worse, ones. That is a shocking indictment of the company we are discussing. The law already requires service charge increases to be “reasonable”, but when charges are skyrocketing for basic maintenance services such as cutting grass, many residents do not feel that they are being treated reasonably.
UK Steel Strategy
Matt Western Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Kyle
I am glad to see the hon. Lady at the Dispatch Box. It is always an honour to have exchanges with her, as it has been for quite some time.
The hon. Lady mentions Wales, but she seems to have no idea about the breadth and depth of the steel industry across Wales. She seems to think that there is only one steel maker, manufacturer and operator in Wales. There is not. She seems to be forgetting all about 7 Steel in Cardiff. That explains why the Conservatives in government failed to have a strategy and vision for steel and to support the sector because they did not even know who was making steel and where. This Government understand all our steel assets, and we are creating a strategy to make sure that all of them add up to more than the sum of their parts and that we have a domestic industry that is sustainable, secure and growing into the future.
The hon. Lady seems to want to exit from British Steel without any more investment whatsoever. That would be the worst of all worlds. She wants to strand an entire community. We will stand by that community and make sure that the steel industry and sector thrives into the future.
On tariffs, let me just explain to the party that used to be about free and fair trade that free trade depends on fair trade. Fair trade depends on not having overcapacity. We cannot have overcapacity and fair trade. Therefore, we must correct the market and offer protection where overcapacity is in danger of decimating one of our key industries for defence, security and future prosperity.
The worst thing that could be done for the British steel industry is to do nothing. All we have heard from the Conservatives is, “Don’t do any of the things that Labour is doing,” with no alternatives offered whatsoever. They are the “do nothing” party, and that is the worst of all worlds.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. As he says, steel is national security and economic security. Can I just say, it is terrific at long last to hear a Government showing some mettle? [Hon. Members: “Oh.”]
The array of measures in the strategy is impressive, from tariffs to procurement and scrap, but there are some concerns among our precious automotive sector. Could my right hon. Friend outline some detail about how this will relate to EU measures and how it will support UK manufacturers facing “made in Europe” tariffs?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is right to explain that this strategy is a holistic strategy. It looks at the industry as a whole and considers how all the assets can be brought together and given a sustainable footing. I will invest, modernise and protect where necessary.
On the questions about the EU, I have, of course, been in discussion with my EU counterparts. I met four EU commissioners in the last month and the vice-president. Next week we will have further discussions when we are in Cameroon for the ministerial meetings of the World Trade Organisation. These are important times for both the European Union and the UK. Our reset is important, and that reset work will continue. It is in both our interests to make sure that we invest in, protect and modernise our respective steel industries, and we should be doing so with as much co-operation as possible.
Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Western Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
I wish Rhiannon every success in her endeavours, not least because one of the problems provided by Brexit affects florists up and down the country. Some 80% of the flowers sold by florists in the UK come from, or through, the Netherlands, and when we sort out our sanitary and phytosanitary measures deal—which we hope to do very soon—it will be much more affordable for florists to be able to survive in this country. Of course, it is good to support British tailoring as well.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The UK-US economic prosperity deal was very welcome for the automotive sector, but there are some challenges for that sector. The current quota of 100,000 units and the quarterly thresholds are particularly difficult for small-volume and micro manufacturers, such as Aston Martin, McLaren and Morgan. What conversations are taking place between the US and the UK on those details?
Chris McDonald
I certainly recognise the issue of the quota, and the importance of our small-volume manufacturers such as Aston Martin and McLaren. I met McLaren last week, I had a meeting with Aston Martin this week as part of the Automotive Council UK, and I will meet Aston Martin’s chief executive in the new year. This is perhaps a good opportunity to congratulate McLaren and Lando Norris on his outstanding win at the Formula 1 championship—only 35 men have won the F1 championship, and 11 of them have been British. The motorsport industry is a fine example of British engineering and British sportsmanship coming together.
Consumer Affairs
Matt Western Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered consumer affairs.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. You will be familiar with the expression “knowing the price of everything, but the value of nothing”. Perhaps that was yesteryear, or possibly yesterday, but today I want to say this. UK consumers are now living in a land of confusion; nothing is what it seems. In fact, a staggering 82% of the British public feel that they are paying more but getting less. Products are not what they were, and services are not all they seem. Prices are not even the same between the same company’s stores—and whether in store or online, the advent of new technologies, such as algorithmic pricing, brings further opacity.
Let me turn to a simple item. Every day, so many individuals get a meal deal, and they might get a bag of crisps in that meal deal. I opened up one of those bags of crisps just the other day and I found 20 crisps in a bag of crisps that cost a pound. That filled just 40% of the volume of the bag. When I put in for the debate, I said to colleagues in the Chamber, “When did you last try to book a flight? Don’t tell me: when you went on the portal, you looked up the flight and it said, ‘Just two flights remaining!’” Everyone just smiled at me. They knew exactly what I was talking about. We are just about to check out on that flight and, woah, the price has just increased. Products are packaged so that we cannot see or gauge the contents. Labelling is deliberately so opaque that we are not aware of the true contents.
Today, I will argue that British consumers are getting a raw deal. They feel they are being ripped off—they know it. How many times have I listened to supermarket chief executives saying that the consumer wants choice, while at the same time those companies make any choice comparison virtually impossible? I am not even talking apples and oranges; I am talking about comparing oranges with oranges or apples with apples. It is all produce that would be bought by weight, but it is often sold by quantity instead, and the sizes vary. Some things are priced per kilo; others, in adjacent baskets, are sold per 100 grams. Mental maths is needed, but why?
We have not even got to quality. Elsewhere we see products that are wrapped and labelled, so we cannot see the entire contents, as they are partially masked, and there are products that shrink and shrivel in size from one year to the next. Brands are happy to exclaim when they promote something with 10% or 20% extra free, but they never tell us when they have shrunk the product by 10%, 20% or 30% or when they have made changes to the quality of the ingredients. Of course we have regulators, but if we ask any consumer, they will tell us that nobody is standing up for them. For years, we have lived in Rip-off Britain, and it is time that the Government appointed a consumer champion.
In the time I have, I want to focus on the grocery sector, supermarkets and other retailers’ variable, opaque or misleading pricing strategies, and other sectors too. I will also consider the practice of dynamic and algorithmic pricing and subscription traps, before turning to the regulatory landscape. I could also talk about water bills, insurance premiums and so many other sectors, but let me start with groceries, because of course they are one of the main constituents of every household’s cost of living.
In June 2025 in a survey by Which?, 94% of people cited the price of their food shop as the reason for their cost of living increasing. According to the same research organisation, trust in the food and grocery sector has fallen to the lowest level in 12 years. The Food Standards Agency said in its research that 91% of consumers were concerned about food prices.
We are talking about products packaged so that we cannot see their contents and labelling deliberately so opaque that we are not aware of the contents. Other constituents complain about shrinkflation. Indeed, a Which? survey in 2023 found that a huge 77% of shoppers have noticed shrinkflation in their shops—products getting smaller while the price creeps up or even rockets. Fast-moving consumer goods are an obvious area. You cannot imagine the years when I was growing up, Dame Siobhain, but back then a Mars Bar was pretty sizeable. If we look at one today, and it is the same with a bar of Dairy Milk, the size is a fraction of what it was.
Matt Western
There are other products available, Dame Siobhain, but I will not give an entire list of them. Whatever someone’s guilty pleasure is, though, the products that they have grown up with and loved are not what they were.
Even tubes of toothpaste in boxes, despite appearing to be a similar size to the product bought a few months ago or a couple of years ago—whenever it was—have been reduced in size from 100 ml to 75 ml. Pats of butter were 250 grams when I was growing up. Then they were reduced to 225 grams and now they are 180 grams. Then there are packets of digestive biscuits; I think we are all familiar with those. I will not go into particular brands, but they were recently reduced in size from 433 grams to 400 grams, with no indication that they had been reduced, other than a discreet numeric tucked away on the packaging, where it cannot be found. Whatever the product, the same applies.
Of course, nearly all of us rely on supermarkets for our groceries, but we are not happy. In 2023, Which? conducted a survey of more than 2,000 UK adults and found that two thirds of them felt that supermarkets were ripping people off through the prices in their convenience stores, which are often more expensive than the larger stores and rarely stock budget items at all.
Every year for four years in my constituency of Warwick and Leamington, I have been buying a basket of products in a supermarket’s in-town store and its out-of-town store, in order to compare the prices. The two stores are owned by the same company: it happens to be Tesco, but I have also just done it for Sainsbury’s as well. I wanted to see what the discrepancies were by buying the mainstream, everyday products that households depend on. I am sure that I could also talk about Morrisons, Aldi, Asda or whatever supermarket it may be; I do not mean to simply identify the two supermarkets that I mentioned before.
I buy the products within an hour of each other on the same day, so that no one can say, “Oh well, it was a different day,” or, “It was a different delivery,” or whatever it might be. I also do my own market research. The price discrepancies are shocking and appear arbitrary. The worst case was a bottle of wine that was 60% more expensive in the Tesco Metro store versus Tesco’s own superstore. That is incredible but true.
There are other examples. Sainsbury’s sells the identical bleach in its express store for a 38% mark-up on the price in its main store, and it adds a premium of up to 11% for basic items such as cornflakes, eggs and biscuits. As I say, Tesco was no better, as it charged an additional 39% for apples in its Metro store and 27% more for bananas. At £3.20, a pat of butter was 64% more expensive in the express store in the heart of Leamington, right in the centre of the town, than in the superstore, which is not a mile away, where it was £1.95.
I will leave you with one key fact, Dame Siobhain. As I said, 94% of people recognise that groceries are a major driver of their cost of living inflation. I wanted to look at the same basket, going back in time. In 2021, the basket that I bought then cost £28. Four years on— today—it costs £38, which is £10 more expensive from a base of £28. These findings from the last four years are substantiated by Which? research. It found that three quarters—75%—of consumers said that they find the price of convenience store food too expensive compared with the price in larger supermarkets, and nearly half—45%—struggle to find affordable food in convenience stores.
On the Business and Trade Committee, we recently held an inquiry into this issue and we asked retailers about these price differentials. They cited the different cost base for their operations. I used to work in business; I worked in a corporate for 24 years. Of course, I appreciate that there is a different cost base, but the same logic could be applied to a rural store or a small town store versus a major town store, or we could compare a different cost base between the north of the country and the south of the country, or between different regions.
I appreciate that rents and labour costs vary, as do disposable incomes and weekly expenditure. When we put that to the supermarkets, Sainsbury’s said it charges
“a slight premium to reflect the increased cost”.
That “slight premium” is on average 8%, but I gave the example of 60% for a bottle of wine and the huge mark-up of 64% on a pat of butter. These are everyday products. I do not buy the supermarkets’ argument. First, they never used to differentiate between stores decades ago; there was a national price. Secondly, there is a big social injustice here. More often than not, those stores are the only choice for the elderly and infirm, or for students and others who do not have easy access to good public transport or affordable private mobility. One constituent wrote to me last week and said:
“I am someone who is affected by the inflated price of food and goods in Tesco Metro, The Parade, Leamington Spa. This is my local shop which is the easiest one for me to access. I consider it wrong that I have to pay more than if I shopped at the big superstore in Warwick. I am a pensioner on a limited income so every penny counts.”
Let me look further into opaque pricing. The Competition and Markets Authority in 2023 found that supermarkets allow “unhelpful inconsistencies”. I suggest that it is incredibly helpful for the big retailers, who confuse and perhaps manipulate consumers. I recognise that the Price Marking Order 2004 has recently been updated to address some of these problems, and the CMA and trading standards should take necessary enforcement action when they are presented with evidence of misleading pricing practices. As I understand it, from next April we will see improved industry practices, so that comparisons are much easier and enforcement action is taken against businesses that are not compliant. These big brands are built on trust, but they have all the power versus the consumer.
It is not just groceries or supermarkets; in any shop, products may be plastered with “was” and “now” labels, claiming discounts. The same Which? investigation in June this year uncovered questionable and dodgy pricing tactics at Sports Direct that it alleges may break the law. Researchers analysed the prices of 160 different products sold on the Sports Direct website and found examples where the savings suggested by the higher reference point—the recommended retail price—did not appear genuine. For 58 of the 160 products, Which? found no retailer selling them at or above the Sports Direct reference price. Under existing consumer law, Sports Direct could therefore be involved, as I understand it, in misleading actions.
Elsewhere, Which? found electronics retailers using sneaky “was…now” pricing practices that mislead shoppers by exaggerating discounts. In an analysis of televisions sold by major UK retailers, more than half—56% of cases —had a “was” price that was not the most recent price charged before the promotion, which can create the illusion of bigger discounts than in reality. As a result of those misleading pricing strategies, Which? researchers found that 84% of consumers do not trust these claims.
It is not just about products; it is in the services sector as well. Turning to tickets and bookings, dynamic pricing exploits consumers. There is pressure at checkout and no transparency about what is happening, be it trains, hotels, airlines or gigs. I mentioned flights earlier, and talked about the “two seats left”. Airlines argue that what they are doing is in keeping with demand, but I argue that they seek to confuse consumers.
How many of us, maybe in the last few months, have tried to book a summer holiday? We think we have booked the luggage and x, y, z, but it is not clear. We are pressured into buying more luggage capacity and into additional expenditure. The same applies to hotels, which always have “three rooms left”. We start the process and then the price changes at checkout. It has happened to me, and I am sure to everyone who is watching this debate. The most egregious examples have been flight tickets to major football matches. Back in 2019, a flight to Madrid was typically £50. As soon as the champions league final was announced, it surged to £750 to £1,000 for a seat. Fans rightly described that as shameless greed.
The same applies to tickets for gigs. There was a huge public outcry at the seedy scam, just last summer, that was Oasis and Ticketmaster. Ticketmaster also came before the Select Committee. Which? saw evidence that fans were shown one ticket price when they were queuing for tickets, only to have that price taken away at the last second and replaced with a far higher, unexpected ticket price when the page reloaded. However, the consumer was committed; they had spent an hour or longer on the system, and the system knew it. We could say, “Computer says yes”, but at twice the price or more. In one example, the cost of standing tickets, originally advertised to the consumer for £148.50, surged to £337.50 each due to in-demand pricing. That meant that four standing tickets could cost an eye-watering £1,400, once service and order-processing fees were included.
I turn to subscription traps. We have all been stuck in unwanted subscriptions, and I am happy that the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 has given new rights to consumers. Too many are trapped in subscriptions, and it will help to ease that burden. I am proud that the Labour Government are being proactive, with a consultation on subscriptions that closed in February. I ask the Minister, however, what assessment has the Department made of the responses thus far? I urge him to do all he can to back consumers against unscrupulous firms that use those subscription models.
Why does all this matter? Products on the shelves are being deliberately presented in a misleading way. It is becoming a wild west for consumers, and I fear that things will only get worse with real-time pricing changes, for example, through electronic price labels on shelves. Ultimately, there is a power imbalance between big brands and consumers, because the brands and retailers have the data. I would argue that they are profiteering while vulnerable people are being exploited; trust is at a record low. It seems that the CMA is not doing enough for consumers and trading standards are under-resourced.
I will talk briefly about some recommendations that are both simple and complex. There are specific reforms that we can introduce, and they are championed, for example, by Which?. They include a new ban on using dynamic pricing to increase a price once a transaction has begun. The Government could also make life easier for consumers by ensuring that shops display clear and consistent unit pricing to allow people to make a more informed choice. Greater responsibility could be moved to national regulators for the most complex businesses operating nationally. Strategic regional and national hubs could be created with a critical mass of resources and expertise to tackle local crime and to proactively address consumer harms.
Trains and train tickets are another example. A constituent wrote that there should
“be limits introduced on maximum pricing—for example for people going to work, it is just stupid pricing and is pricing people out of commuting.”
His dad used to travel from Leamington to London every day for work in the ’80s and ’90s, but that is no longer affordable. He suggests scrapping peak fares on nationalised trains, and it is interesting that in recent days, Scotland appears to have announced that it is looking to do that.
I also ask the Minister to consider banning dynamic pricing in certain sectors where the market conditions lead to time pressure and a power imbalance. Perhaps more simply, I ask for trading standards to be given more funding and more officers to investigate. The CMA needs to use its power to investigate with vigour, so it also needs additional resourcing. There are clear laws in place to prevent consumers from being ripped off in this way, and the CMA and trading standards should take the necessary enforcement action when they are presented with evidence of misleading pricing practices, but we need someone on the side of consumers to call out rip-offs, scams and basic profiteering. I want to introduce the idea of a consumer champion who has the power to call out those rip-offs and to stand up on behalf of consumers against big business.
In conclusion, I want to see a Government who are more on the side of the consumers. Of course we need successful businesses, but there is such a big power imbalance right now and it is only going to get worse. Unscrupulous firms are profiteering while consumers are getting ripped off and do not trust businesses. We need to bring order back to a chaotic market, so consumers have more information and are more empowered. We need to rebalance the asymmetry that exists between consumers and businesses. The Government should urgently look at what legislative reforms they can introduce to provide greater protections for consumers, because constituents all too often get a raw deal while firms profiteer.
We must make change, and we could make it quickly. We need to stand up more for consumers by saying no to clear profiteering, the shrinking of basic elements, price gouging and dodgy pricing strategies, and yes to transparent prices, fair markets and the trusted brands that we all used to know and love. We need someone to stand up and be on the consumer’s side. We need a consumer champion.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
It is a pleasure to serve in my first debate as a Minister under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing this debate. I would have felt cheated had the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) not been at my first outing as a Minister. He mentioned that perhaps this work was different from the work that we had done together previously on human rights. I think there is a lot of overlap, because on human rights we are asking for people to be treated with dignity and to be treated fairly under the law, and I think it is the same with consumer protection. What there is also in common is that when those rights are not respected, that causes enormous anger, so I think there is considerable overlap.
This has been a fantastic debate, with many different issues raised. I will refer to as many of them as possible. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). I had hoped, as a matter of professional pride, to get through the whole debate without the ministerial get-out of “I will write to you about that”, but she asked me to write to her, so I thank her for saving me.
The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch made similar points about ensuring that innovation is balanced with consumer protection. I am quite encouraged, in my first few days in this job, by the approach of the leadership of the CMA as a watchdog. It is very clear that it will bare its teeth at the most egregious abuses of consumers, but where having a lighter touch and some guidance would be better, it is doing that, so that the innovation that was mentioned is not lost.
I am looking forward to working on the licensing review—particularly because it means I get invited to a night out in Hackney. We will add that to the diary pile in the office. My hon. Friend gave the example of Meta and asked about acting quickly online. I think the CMA now has the online interface orders, which allow it to quickly ask companies to change or to take down content. We are looking forward to seeing how that operates in practice.
My hon. Friend and a couple of other Members mentioned algorithms and AI. I am really interested in how AI functions here. There was a case in Atlantic City in which there was some suggestion that algorithms were being used to fix hotel prices and operate a cartel, but human beings were involved in that decision making. One of the interesting questions is how we regulate things when AI might be making decisions to breach consumer law, without a human being involved in that.
To come to some of the issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, it will come as a shock, in a debate talking about the size of Mars bars, that I am no stranger to the confectionery aisle. [Laughter.] In case Hansard did not pick that up, everyone cried, “No!” there. My ire, when a Back Bencher, was actually directed towards the changing size and shape of Easter eggs from last year to this year.
My hon. Friend was right to mention the changes to the price marking order that are coming in in April and which will require consistency in unit pricing, so that people, when making consumer decisions, are able to compare different goods. We are also putting in place more clarity for consumers on multi-buys and things like that, but we need to keep an eye on this. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to monitor it, and that he will make that case very strongly in years to come. In relation to his point about a consumer champion, I think that my ministerial colleague who will be primarily responsible for consumer affairs will hope to feel that that is their role, but I will take the suggestion to the Department.
Many Members spoke about concerns around variable pricing models, such as dynamic and algorithmic pricing, and a broader sense of a lack of transparency in pricing. It is a frontier for regulation—things move very quickly—but we do believe that it is our job to ensure that consumers have protection so that they can easily and accurately compare prices.
As the shadow Minister for business, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, rightly said, pricing flexibility, when used responsibly, can be good for consumers and business. It can manage demand, improve access and support innovation. We all love a bargain; we all love the January sales. We like discounts for different groups, but against that evolving backdrop, the Government are actively engaging with regulators, industry and our watchdogs. The CMA’s dynamic pricing project is a recent example of that work.
We will strengthen the law where necessary to uphold transparency, as evidenced by the recently implemented ban on drip pricing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington referred to as a particular bugbear, to ensure that the price presented at the start of the shopping process is the price that consumers pay at the checkout. The principle that underlines that, and that underpins consumer law, is that consumers must know the price that they will pay, and can make an informed decision about whether that price is right for them. Where that is not the case, the Government and our watchdogs will look to take action.
Dynamic and algorithmic pricing have been spoken about, and they are a growing concern for many Members’ constituents. We know that changing prices in response to demand is an essential part of any market economy, but it needs to be done responsibly and within consumer law. It should not be the case that businesses use technology to rapidly change prices in a way that misleads customers or is otherwise unfair, resulting in them overpaying. That would be wrong in any circumstances, but particularly when so many of our constituents are struggling to make ends meet.
Let me be clear: when consumers are misled or pressured into paying a higher price, that is unlawful. The law, including the recently introduced Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, requires that businesses provide clear, up-front pricing so that consumers understand what they are paying for. Additionally, consumers must be able to evaluate that information in the absence of undue pressure. Aggressive tactics and pressure selling are illegal. When price fluidity or instability puts customers in an unfair position—for example, as we mentioned, in ticketing, when consumers feel that they have to immediately accept a high price for fear of it going even higher—that is unacceptable.
The CMA is acting when businesses fail to comply with those laws. For example, last year, it took enforcement action against Wowcher, which agreed to change its selling practices after concerns were raised about its use of a countdown timer to pressurise customers, among other marketing claims.
Before moving on to Oasis, I should declare an interest, which is that in the late-1990s fight between Oasis and Blur, I was very much Team Blur, so that may inform my attitude towards these matters. The CMA is seeking to make changes to the way that Ticketmaster labels tickets and provides pricing information to fans, in response to concerns about last year’s Oasis sale. Obviously, that investigation has yet to conclude. We will continue to work with the watchdog to ensure that pricing practices are transparent and proportionate, and that consumers have the right safeguards.
The CMA recently examined the use of dynamic pricing across different sectors of the economy, and its report sets out all sorts of conditions that may make dynamic pricing problematic, and the information that businesses should provide to consumers when it is in operation.
Matt Western
I should have congratulated my hon. Friend at the very beginning on his appointment—a very warm welcome, Minister, to the role. He talks about dynamic pricing and ticketing. He will probably be aware that in the Business and Trade Committee we looked at Ticketmaster and Live Nation. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) made some comments about smaller venues. What was striking was the scale of dominance that Live Nation and Ticketmaster have—their control over this entire market.
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend makes a really good point. He referenced the comments made by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) on the impact on venues, big or small. It is important to say that there are ways of doing this that are advantageous to everyone. An example that was mentioned to me is Radiohead’s practices in selling their tickets to make sure there was not widespread industrial buying and reselling. There are ways of doing this. The Government really welcome the CMA’s guidance on dynamic pricing, and it has been clear that it will continue to actively review those practices and will tell us if it feels there is a need for changes in the regulatory environment and the law in future.
Another issue that has been raised is personal pricing, where technology is increasingly enabling online businesses to use personal data to set different prices and tailor them to different groups of people. It is not against the law, as with dynamic pricing, to change prices for different groups in a free market; that is part of the functioning of the market. As with dynamic pricing, it can offer consumers benefits, such as tailored deals based on regular purchases, but we know that customers worry about their data being used in more targeted and less transparent ways to set personalised prices that are higher than those they would otherwise see.
The watchword on this is transparency, in accordance with consumer law. It is an evolving issue, and the Government will keep a close eye on developments on this frontier. We will, of course, look to the watchdog to act on any suggestions that consumers are being disadvantaged.
I want to turn to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington on the pricing of food and essential goods and services. Other Members made these points too. The difference between the smaller high street supermarkets and the hypermarket is one that I feel very personally. I grew up in a household without a car, so we had to go to the local shop, where there was much less choice and fewer bargains. It is not an easy issue to solve, but it is one that I feel particularly personally.
It is really important in those situations that there is transparency and fairness in pricing. Our role in Government is to protect consumers and ensure minimum standards, including on pricing. Sector regulators build on the framework that we set by introducing targeted regulations to support consumers in their sectors, particularly in essential services such as energy, financial services and telecoms, where affordability challenges are most pronounced for our constituents at the moment.
Matt Western
Several hon. Members around the Chamber raised the differential pricing between in-town and out-of-town stores. The points the Minister made are totally right, but when retailers were asked about this at the Business and Trade Committee, they just said that it was due to a different cost base. A corporate has a big cost base. It cannot make the case that there is a different cost base for in-town versus out-of-town stores. It may as well say that it has different cost bases for Cromer and Shoreditch, or wherever—it does not wash. Consumers in different parts of the country, wherever they may be, should be offered, I believe, a uniform price. Pricing should not be to the detriment of those who do not have access to out-of-town stores.
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully. The argument that the Government sometimes hear from business is that it is about the cost of the property. He is shaking his head, and I will try to transmit the shaking of his head throughout the system on his behalf. He makes an important point.
I reiterate my thanks for all the contributions to the debate, and congratulate my hon. Friend on securing it. I assure him that we will not be complacent on this issue. Using the DMCC Act and the CMA’s recent work on pricing, we are working to take tangible steps to ensure that pricing practices are fair and transparent, and that businesses across the economy are held accountable.
Where specific markets require more targeted interventions, the Government have been willing to do so. We have seen that recently with the regulation of buy now, pay later arrangements and ensuring that customers continue to pay fair prices for energy. Our work will not stop there. We are always testing the case for going further, working in partnership with regulators and enforcers to ensure that consumers are adequately protected as pricing practices evolve. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate.
Matt Western
I thank all those who participated in the debate. It is a Thursday afternoon, and I would have anticipated that a lot more people would have wanted to speak to this issue. I welcome the points that have been made. We have used examples that perhaps bring a certain lightness to the debate, but they are good examples of what is going on more generally across markets. I am absolutely pro-markets—I used to work for a corporate in a very competitive sector. All I am asking for is greater transparency, clarity and responsibility from the marketplace.
So many points, such as those about variable pricing and drip pricing, were repeated. Some of the examples were about the financial sector and what has happened there. Many of us have seen the scams in that sector over decades, whether it was endowment mortgages or whatever. Most recently, we have seen that about £950 will be paid out to most of the claimants following the mis-selling of automotive finance since 2007.
I was really encouraged to hear what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said about the provision of a helpline. My goodness—I remember those. Northern Ireland offers that for consumers. Points were also made around experiences in the housebuilding sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) talked about the leasehold sector and the management charges.
There are so many facets of the marketplace that we could have talked about this afternoon—so many different categories in which consumers feel cheated by the system. I therefore welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his place and the vigour with which he will, I am sure, look at this. I will absolutely continue to pursue it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered consumer affairs.
Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Western Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Thomas
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind invitation. It is possible that I will be darkening the door of businesses in her constituency this summer.
We are determined to continue working with hospitality businesses, whether in Scotland or in the rest of the country. As I said in an earlier answer, we have set out plans for a licensing taskforce to look at what else we can do to lower the cost of red tape and regulation. As the hon. Lady rightly says, we are taking measures to reform business rates, and perhaps the Scottish Government might like to follow our example.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
In my constituency, Lydia and Frankie both run businesses that employ around 50 individuals. They both have covid loans and energy loans on top of the usual business pressures they suffer. Beyond maintaining the current discount on business rates, may I urge the Government urgently to review business rates reform, which is so desperately needed?
Gareth Thomas
I recognise that my hon. Friend is a great champion of businesses in his constituency, and I was pleased to meet one of them when I was there recently. I absolutely recognise the significance of business rates reform. The Chancellor has been very clear that she is committed to business rates reform, and we will set out further detail on our plans in the Budget later this year.
Businesses in Rural Areas
Matt Western Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matt Western (in the Chair)
I am pleased to see so many Members here. It is a warm afternoon, so if you wish to remove your jackets, you may do so. I do not necessarily expect a hot debate on this subject; however, a great many of you are expecting to speak, so we will start with a time limit of two minutes—and I am already anticipating that it could be reduced—and you may wish to prepare your speeches accordingly. I remind you all to speak through the Chair.
Matt Western (in the Chair)
It is good to see so many Members bobbing; I remind Members that they should bob throughout if they wish to be called in the debate. I am going to set a two-minute time limit, but we may have to reduce that at some point, given the amount of interventions that have been taken—I am not criticising that but, when speaking, please bear in mind that should you take an intervention you will prevent others from speaking later.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. It has taken until 2025, but Barr, a rural south Ayrshire village, is finally able to enjoy a mobile phone signal. I was pleased for the community; I had my photograph taken with residents, and the local papers covered the story. It should have been a non-event—this is 2025, after all—but rural communities are too often left behind when it comes to digital connectivity, which is why it was an important moment for Barr. That is the first of three points that I want to make about businesses in rural communities such as Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock.
My second point is that businesses employ local people, and people buy houses and spend their money in the local community. Sometimes the issue is finding local talent, and that is made more difficult by a skills mismatch. Take green energy: many rural communities are hosting new wind farm projects, but vacancies for local engineers and maintenance staff for wind farms are not always easy to find. I am sure that that is also common in many other areas. We have talent in Ayrshire, but we do not have the right skills. We need to train our young people with the right skillsets for local jobs for the future. I want growth deals, such as the Ayrshire growth deal, to invest in skills for the future, and I made that case to the Scotland Office yesterday.
My final point is about broader infrastructure such as transport. Poor road connectivity and limited public transport options hinder people’s access to work. The A77 in Ayrshire is in desperate need of an upgrade. It is plagued by congestion and shocking road surfaces, which make travel difficult for residents and businesses alike. Last week, the Government announced £15.6 billion for transport in the spending review. The spending review shows that the Government are backing the devolved Administrations. Those funds should be used directly to ensure that Scotland’s transport network is efficient and accessible. I have again written to the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Fiona Hyslop, about the state of the A77.
I want to finish on a broader point—
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this excellent debate. In preparation, I surveyed local businesses to hear from them directly. What came through loud and clear is that rural businesses face the same mounting pressures as many others. As one business in Tring said:
“The cost of business is the highest it has ever been.”
Another told me:
“Currently, there is no incentive for small businesses to employ staff or even start up.”
I grew up helping my mum on the shop floor in a rural market town, so that breaks my heart. Such businesses are the backbone of our community.
Practically all the businesses who responded cited the combined impact of Government Budget measures, from the employment costs faced by Claire in Wheathampstead, who runs 2by2 Holidays, to Tring Martial Arts Academy and DJ’s Play Zone, which are reducing operating hours and workforce, and shelving expansion plans. How does that support the growth of our economy?
Accountants are often the canary in the coal mine when it comes to business health. AngloDutch accountants in Tring confirms that numerous clients, especially in hospitality, are struggling with employer’s national insurance increases alongside rising business rates. There are also the rising costs of day-to-day operations, from energy bills to products, as highlighted by Savage’s and Tabure in Berkhamsted. The cost of living has an impact on customers too. Chantal from Wheathampstead tells me that people simply are not buying like they used to, a concern also raised by businesses such as iQuilt.
As has been mentioned, our rural businesses face additional structural burdens. Connecting people to businesses in person or online is hindered by terrible internet and inadequate transport services. Flamstead, Markyate, Gaddesden and parts of Wheathampstead are in the worst 10% for connectivity nationwide. What is more, under the Conservatives, Hertfordshire saw the biggest cut—56.5%—in vehicle mileage on bus services from 2016 to 2021. I call on the Minister to take action for our rural businesses.
Matt Western (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members to keep an eye on the clock. The time limit is two minutes.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on the welcome focus on our vital rural businesses. When we talk about rural business, we are talking about the lifeblood of our countryside. In Taunton and Wellington, and across Somerset, businesses are not just economic units but the backbone of our communities. Family farms are not taxation units for inheritance purposes; they put food on our tables. The Government should think hard about their family farm tax, and should do so urgently.
Rural entrepreneurs face rising costs across the board, unreliable infrastructure and a postcode lottery in support. Constituents in villages such as West Hatch, Staple Fitzpaine and West Buckland, as well as those around Wellington, simply cannot get reliable broadband or mobile signals. Transport is another key concern, which is why the Liberal Democrats proposed an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would have provided compensation for rural firms, such as Apple Campers, Western Recovery Services and TLC, that are losing business due to the closure of junction 26 on the M5 for three whole months under National Highways requirements.
Public transport is also essential. It is about connecting the parts of our UK economy to make a stronger whole. Banking and postal access are also vital to our rural businesses. Although I welcome the introduction of the banking hub model in Wellington, as I know the Minister does, it is somewhat bizarre for residents to see, in a town that has no post office, a building with the Post Office logo above the door and window that is not a post office and does not provide post office services. That craziness is straight out of “Yes, Minister” and needs to change urgently.
Rural businesses do not ask for special favours. All they ask for is fairness and for a level playing field for infrastructure, support and services.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
There are over 3,400 fantastic businesses in Yeovil that provide amazing services for our communities, from big employers such as Screwfix and Leonardo to local businesses such as Ben Russell’s hairdressers or the Somerset Cheesecakery in Ilminster. Thanks to terrible Government Budgets, unfair trade deals and soaring energy prices, many businesses in Yeovil do not feel supported by central Government. This Government can change that.
I am sorry if this sounds like a list of local demands but, well, it basically is. The Government changes to national insurance are an unfair jobs tax. Let us get rid of that, and instead, reverse Conservative tax cuts for big banks, increase the digital services tax to 6% on social media giants and raise the remote gambling duty for online gambling companies.
Next is our family farms. Farmers deserve some actual support, because in Yeovil they have lost trust in this Government. To start, the family farm tax has to go, or at least be delayed until April ’27 as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee suggests. We also need to strengthen the grocery code so it has some actual teeth to support farmers.
Finally, our high street businesses need banking hubs. I was happy to have secured a banking hub for Crewkerne, but, despite having the same needs, Chard and Ilminster were denied one because they had cash machines. They are not alone. Will the Government expand the criteria for approving banking hubs and commit to rolling out a few more than 350 banking hubs?
I could go on about funding for vital bus services, such as the No. 11 bus in Yeovil, and the need for better broadband, greater investment in apprenticeships, greater defence spending to support jobs in Yeovil and so on, but time is short, so I will just say that I hope the Government take on board my asks and those from hon. Members today, because then we might finally start to get a Government who help rural businesses thrive rather than getting in the way.
Greg Smith
I remember my right hon. Friend visiting the farm. It was in my constituency at the time, but the boundary changes actually took it away from me. Preventing the theft of machinery from not just farms but all rural businesses, which suffer so badly when equipment theft takes place, is a critical measure that we have to get right.
I take the important point that my right hon. Friend makes around illegal encampments. Any illegal development needs to be clamped down on in whatever form it takes. I pay tribute to Thames Valley police’s rural crime taskforce for some of its work on that. It would be good if the Minister could work with Home Office colleagues to extend that work across the whole country, and push the Minister for Policing, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), to introduce the statutory instruments that would bring the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act into full force.
Let us turn to the direction of travel on rural business under this Government, which gives me real concern. First, as others have mentioned, the increase in national insurance contributions and changes to the NICs thresholds place a disproportionate burden on rural employers, many of whom already operate on the tightest of margins. For a rural farm employing five seasonal workers, or a family-run dairy business with a handful of long-serving staff, these extra costs are not abstract; they are the difference between hiring and firing.
The sharp rise in the national living wage is hitting rural sectors, with seasonal and low-margin employment—especially farming, food processing and rural tourism—hit particularly hard. These sectors do not have the luxury of passing on costs to consumers in the same way that some of the big urban retail or tech companies do. They face fixed contracts and price pressures from supermarkets, and this change risks hollowing out jobs that were previously viable.
Compounding that is the change to business property relief, which will strip tax protections from many family-run rural enterprises such as holiday accommodation and equestrian centres, undermining succession planning and deterring future investment in those rural businesses. Labour has targeted the very dynamism that it claims to support.
Labour’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill poses a serious threat to rural enterprise. By relaxing environmental safeguards and expanding compulsory purchase powers—removing hope value protections from prime farmland—the Bill risks allowing developers and central authorities to override local rural businesses and agricultural land. The removal of green belt-like protections from the mythical grey belt areas also paves the way for large-scale development in what were previously safe rural areas. Rural entrepreneurs now face heightened uncertainty over their long-term investments and succession plans. Farmers, holiday let providers and small rural manufacturers alike may wake up to find their economic foundations undermined by top-down planning interventions.
The Employment Rights Bill threatens significant administrative, legal and recruitment costs for rural businesses, which are estimated at up to £5 billion across the economy and are disproportionately heavier for small rural businesses, jeopardising their ability to hire flexibly or offer seasonal work.
But perhaps the most damaging of all is Labour’s recent change to agricultural property relief: the family farm tax. This is not simply a tweak to inheritance policy; it is a direct assault on the ability of farming families to pass on their land and their livelihoods from one generation to the next. An estimated 40,000 farming jobs will be lost under Labour’s plans to force all farmers to stop farming on up to 20% of their land.
The Government’s estimate of 27% of farms being impacted is based on outdated APR claims data from 2021-22 that does not reflect rising land values or the full economic picture of commercial family farms. Nearly 40% of farms rely on a combination of APR and BPR to mitigate inheritance tax liabilities. The £1 million threshold applies to both combined, making it far more restrictive than the Government’s modelling suggests. In my constituency, this is already causing disinvestment. I have spoken with farmers who are now deferring expansion, shelving plans for tourism ventures and, in some cases, considering breaking up long-held estates that have supported jobs and communities for generations.
Farm shops have, after years of successful trading, made the difficult decision to close. On rural high streets, costs have risen 15%. At Rumsey’s Handmade Chocolates in Wendover in my constituency, this is already leading to job losses and reduced hours for the staff they have been able to retain. The Pink and Lily pub in Lacey Green shut in February, just seven years after it first opened.
Rural Britain does not ask for favours, but it does demand fairness. It wants policies that reflect the unique challenges of doing business across distances, in smaller labour markets and with greater exposure to the weather, the global economy and regulatory interference. That is why the Opposition will continue to champion low tax, light-touch regulation and a level playing field for rural enterprise. The future of the rural economy cannot be sustained on sentiment alone; it must be underpinned by policy that understands the realities of rural life. On that test, thus far, Labour is failing.
Matt Western (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I gently remind him to allow a couple of minutes for the mover of the motion at the end.
Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill
Matt Western ExcerptsSaturday 12th April 2025
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2024-26 View all Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 94-I Marshalled list for Committee - (12 Apr 2025)
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for taking the time to brief me last night ahead of today’s sitting, and for advance sight of his speech.
To fail to prepare is to prepare to fail. What a way to proceed: recalling Parliament for only the sixth occasion since the end of the second world war to debate a Bill published only 90 minutes ago. This would be conduct unbecoming of a parish council. Our country, our economy and this Parliament all deserve better. That is why the amendment in my name would at least put a sunset on the Bill, and I hope the Government will accept it.
Today is not a failure by the steelworkers of Scunthorpe and elsewhere, their families or the community. They have toiled for generations to ensure that we have the primary steel we need for our structures, our safety and our security. This is a failure on the Government’s watch. Let us be crystal clear what today means: we are entering a tunnel with only one exit. This is a botched nationalisation plan, revealing that the Government have no plan.
In government, we acted to secure Port Talbot and we were negotiating a plan, including British Steel’s preferred option of an electric arc furnace on Teesside, which would have limited job losses and kept Scunthorpe running in transition. Once again, when Labour negotiates, Britain loses—the Chagos islands, US tariffs, the train drivers and now this latest crisis. A bad toolmaker blames his tools, but this time the Government have only themselves to blame.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, in the years between 2010 and 2023, steel production in this country fell by 50% —40% to 50%—and does that not underline the lack of strategy under the previous Government?
Andrew Griffith
I will talk about the difficulties facing steel around the world, but let us just be clear what is happening today: the British people must not have lost their winter fuel allowance and their disability benefits in order that China can walk away from its liabilities, leaving British taxpayers to pick up the bills.
Steel needs energy, and energy needs steel. No one denies that steelmaking has been difficult for some time, but Scunthorpe is the victim of a dishonesty that pretends it is better for the environment to ship coke halfway around the planet than from down the road, and of an energy policy that has driven costs higher than in any competing nation. No one is more responsible for this than the Energy Secretary and the Prime Minister who appointed him.
Scunthorpe Steelworks
Matt Western Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this urgent question and for his comments. I know we will continue to talk and have honest conversations.
Jingye is very much talking to us. As I said, I met Jingye with the Secretary of State and others on Friday, and we hope to do so again this week.
Our priority is respecting the workers, safeguarding jobs and retaining steelmaking. We have been clear in our belief that the best way forward is for Scunthorpe and British Steel to continue as a commercially-run business with private investment and with the Government acting in support, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that no options are off the table.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I was concerned to read about the cancellation of shipments of essential coking coal and so on for Scunthorpe. The Business and Trade Committee heard from British Steel and Tata about some of their needs. The Minister will be aware that an area where we have failed as a country over the last six years or so is not having an industrial strategy, so I make clear to her once more the absolute urgency for us to establish a steel plan to set out the UK’s needs and ensure that we have resilience across our industries and for our economy.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we talked about exactly that at the Business and Trade Committee. This country has seen a significant decline in steel manufacturing over the last decade, and we want to turn that around. Long before we got into government, we committed to a plan for steel, which represents a £2.5 billion investment in UK steelmaking. As we speak, there is a roundtable at JCB in Stafford on the plan for steel, on this occasion discussing trade barriers—I was due to be chairing but came back to be in the Chamber. We have been having a series of roundtables to gather evidence and pull the facts and figures together so that we can put the right investment in place.
Scunthorpe Steelworks
Matt Western Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones
As the right hon. Gentleman would expect, the Secretary of State is and has been talking to Jingye, as have I and officials. Those negotiations will continue. The site at Scunthorpe produces a lot of different types of steel, as he will know. It provides 95% of all steel used by Network Rail. It is incredibly important in that sense, and he is right to draw attention to that. There are many different ways of making steel. On the primary steel point, we are investigating the merits of investing in direct reduced iron, which is when hydrogen is used instead of the old blast furnaces. The reality is that the Scunthorpe blast furnaces are old infrastructure—decades old—that needs updating. We need to move to new technology, and that is what we are trying to do with Jingye.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Clearly, the absence of an industrial strategy in the past five years has had an impact, so I welcome the Government’s notion of a steel plan. Given that the industrial strategy features three major elements—construction, defence and energy infrastructure—will the steel plan look not at a 10-year horizon but at one of 25 to 30 years, to ensure that we get the investment we need for the UK to have virgin steel production, like all other 19 countries of the G20?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his expertise as a member of the Select Committee. We had this debate yesterday. Yes, having a long view has to be the right thing. The Government must ensure that we spend that £2.5 billion of taxpayers’ money in the right way to secure the industry well into the future.