Topical Questions

When we took office, years of Conservative neglect had left our steel industry on the brink, but while others were willing to let the heart of British industry go cold, we were not. I welcome the recent conversion of Opposition colleagues to an active industrial policy, but make no mistake: while others may talk tough, only Labour can be trusted to act in the interests of British workers. When the future of British Steel was on the line, we took immediate action. I can report to the House that thanks to our intervention we have secured the raw materials to keep Scunthorpe’s blast furnaces lit, and British Steel has cancelled the redundancy consultation, which put 2,700 jobs at risk. It was an honour to visit Scunthorpe and Immingham port recently to meet British Steel workers, and I am enormously grateful to them for their resilience, determination and hard work during a turbulent time. There is still much to be done to protect and rebuild our steel industry as a whole after a decade of failure, and that is why we are committed to a £2.5 billion clean steel fund and to work with industry on our steel strategy. We have always said that steel has a bright future in this country, and our actions over the past month have shown that we meant it.

To bring the Secretary of State to Hampshire and Surrey, there are major regeneration schemes under way in my constituency at Farnham, in Brightwells, and the new town centre in Bordon. Both will ultimately depend on attracting physical businesses, be it retail, hospitality or otherwise, for their long-term success. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government should actively support prospective businesses in those areas, and does he not recognise that new taxes such as the national insurance contribution increases that his Government have imposed on businesses will cause businesses in my constituency to falter before they have even taken off?

I welcome the progress being made in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—I thought he was about to invite me there, which is often the case at topical questions, but I sadly did not manage to secure an invitation. I have been absolutely clear: I genuinely wish the inheritance of this Government was a better one in economic terms than the one we received. I genuinely wish the Conservative Government had not left that black hole and that we had not had to make difficult decisions, but life is sometimes about difficult decisions, and Government and business certainly are as well. Without investment in infrastructure, without a serious approach to the fiscal rules, which was absent for much of the last Government, and without investment in the health service, we would struggle. I welcome the success he is talking about; I am always keen to work with him on that.

The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) might not invite Ministers to his constituency, but I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s invitation—diary permitting, I would be delighted to come along. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced our plans for a business growth service, which should make it easier for UK businesses to get Government advice and support in order to grow. I hope that will make a real difference. In addition, we are considering what else we can do to unlock better access to finance for small businesses such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State says that all the funding required for the nationalisation of British Steel will come out of existing budgets. We have seen his Department’s budget—we had an estimates day debate in the House not long ago—and there was no unallocated pot. Could he be a little more specific about exactly which budget the money is coming from?

The shadow Secretary of State points to the statement in which I said that in the previous budget there was a £2.5 billion allocation for the green steel fund. Of course, that came in addition to the £500 million for the Port Talbot transformation, which was agreed under the previous Government but was not in the Departmental accounts—as he knows, it was in a heavily oversubscribed Treasury reserve. Yes, the green steel fund will be there to support what we have had to do at Scunthorpe. Again, as I said when Parliament was recalled, the question there was whether we would pay a significant amount of money for the total loss of the business; give a large amount of money to Jingye, but without the certainty that it would be able to deliver on that plan; or step in and take the action that we did, which I am confident was the right option for value for money and for Scunthorpe.

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. I think it is widely agreed that the cost of nationalising British Steel could run into the billions. Is he really saying that he plans to raid the previously allocated £2.5 billion green steel fund from the national wealth fund, and how is he doing that given that the national wealth fund is operationally independent? Is not the truth that, sooner or later, this will have to come from his department’s budget at the expense of financial support for the automotive sector, exporters and hard-working trade negotiators?

I recognise the shadow Secretary of State’s concern, but let me reassure him on that point. The options available to the Government were: first, the total collapse of British Steel, which would have had an incredible cost to the Exchequer of well over £1 billion; secondly, the request from Jingye for £1.2 billion, which the Leader of the Opposition said she did or did not agree to in some way with it going to Teesside, at very significant cost; or thirdly, as we have done so far, the provision of working capital to British Steel in order to pay wages and continue the purchase of raw materials and the operation of the business. Of course, those costs will be incurred by the company, because they will enable it to produce and sell steel. I will write to him with the details if he is not confident in the decision that we have made, but it was the right decision not just for the steel industry but for the taxpayer.

I am always keen to support my hon. Friend, and I will certainly consider that legislation. We are not a protectionist Government—we welcome open and free trade—but we believe British goods can compete on quality, and his area is a fine example of that. Where British goods are being undercut, not by price and fair competition but by misrepresentation and fraudulent practices, we take that seriously and have taken more powers to deal with it. I am sure that he will raise this shortly during the urgent question. We will ensure that we give him the support he needs to pursue it.

I am unfamiliar with the particular case but concerned by that description. We inherited the export licensing system, and we are reviewing it as part of our ongoing work looking at all aspects of the Government’s work. If the hon. Member writes to me, I will certainly take a personal interest in the matter and write back to him.

I know from personal experience that there are some great hospitality and tourism businesses in Kent, and we want to see them do even better in the coming months and years. That is why we are seeking to support the sector through initiatives such as business rates reform and the licensing taskforce, which has just started work. It is also why the Government will launch a national visitor economy strategy this autumn, as we seek to welcome 50 million international visitors annually by 2030—and many of them, I suspect, will visit Kent.

If the Secretary of State is not going to visit Farnham, can I tempt him to visit Fountain Beauty Therapy in Hurtmore, a much-loved business in my constituency? The owner, Clare Porter, talks about the extreme pressure caused by the Employment Rights Bill, the hike in employers’ national insurance and the withdrawal of business rates relief, leading to a crisis in the hair and beauty sector. What measures is the Secretary of State planning to alleviate pressure on this very important sector?

I am grateful to finally get an invitation to somewhere. We understand that there are significant pressures for many businesses, and the global situation certainly will not provide reassurance in the short term. The measures in the Employment Rights Bill are not in effect yet and will take some time to come in. Since the election, nearly 200,000 jobs have been created, so the labour market is holding up particularly strongly. There are particular issues such as making sure we get probationary periods right and that zero-hours contracts are monitored in the right way, and we are working with business on that.

I commend my hon. Friend for meeting with Berkshire Growth Hub. Growth hubs play a crucial role in local economies. We want to supplement their work with our business growth service, which is set to launch later this year, and we are working with Skills England to identify the skills shortages in particular areas. I am happy to ensure that Skills England talks to Berkshire Growth Hub through my hon. Friend, so that the particular skills challenges in Berkshire are understood by Skills England.

Arrangements at the border are disadvantaging companies on both sides of the channel, so there are mutual advantages to be had in negotiations without feeling the need to make any major concessions, aren’t there?

I am not entirely convinced that the previous Government are a compass by which to navigate the next set of negotiations with the European Union. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right that there is a whole series of unnecessary barriers to trade between ourselves and the European Union that were put in place as a direct consequence of the failure of the negotiations led by the previous Government. He is right to recognise that that is affecting directly a whole number of businesses on both sides of the channel. As the Secretary of State said, there is politics on both sides of the channel, but we are working very hard for British business in that context.

My hon. Friend and several other Welsh colleagues have been talking to me about this. We renegotiated the deal with Port Talbot and the £500 million that goes alongside that. I had a good meeting this week with Blastr, which is looking to build an iron pellet plant at the Port Talbot site if possible, and we are trying to support that. Of course, our focus in recent weeks has been on Scunthorpe and British Steel, but the steel fund remains. The steel plan is still being worked on, which is very broad and hopes to lift the entire UK steel industry.

Sheen Uncovered is a clothing business in my constituency that the Secretary of State is welcome to visit any time. It has been significantly affected by the need to pay import duty up front, thanks to the Conservatives’ terrible Brexit deal, and that duty ranges between 6% and 12% and greatly impacts its cash flow. What are the Government doing to support businesses such as Sheen Uncovered to reduce the challenge of import costs?

I assure the hon. Lady that we are looking at how we can improve that relationship, and she is right to recognise that a whole number of barriers were created as a consequence of choices made previously, which are causing significant challenges to businesses small, medium and large. As the Secretary of State made clear, we cannot give a running commentary on discussions that are under way, but I assure her that the needs and concerns of British business are uppermost in our minds in those discussions.

On the day of the Government’s necessary action to save British Steel, I sent the Secretary of State a letter requesting a meeting to discuss what further we need to do for Grangemouth, where hundreds of jobs have been lost this week when Petroineos decided to cease refining operations, and where thousands of further jobs are at risk. Will he commit to meeting me to discuss the urgent actions that we need to take to secure accelerated investment in Grangemouth’s industrial future?

I can absolutely give that assurance. I have had meetings about this issue just this week. We are ambitious for the just transition for Grangemouth and recognise the issues not just with the refinery but with the polyethylene cracker. We will get to work and set that meeting up.

Many rural businesses rely on farms for their trade. Since the Government announced the family farm tax in the Budget, CBI Economics has spoken to over 4,000 businesses and farms across the country—49% said that they have either cancelled or deferred investment, and 34% said that they have reduced or paused it altogether. How can the Government say that they are supporting local businesses, and what will the Department do to support farms and rural businesses that are suffering because of the Government’s policies?

I feel that is a question for either the Treasury or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but the hon. Lady made it well. Agriculture features prominently in trade and business, and I will ensure that she gets the right opportunity to put questions about taxation to the Chancellor.

Across my constituency in recent weeks we have experienced severe delays to post in those areas served by the Huntingdon delivery office. That follows a recent restructuring of the workforce and changes to delivery routes. Rural communities and businesses, in particular, have been impacted, with missed hospital appointments and several businesses telling me that it is affecting their ability to receive and therefore pay invoices. Will the Minister urgently investigate those ongoing and worsening delays in Huntingdon, and write to me with the outcome of his findings?

I had to wait 50 minutes for a question, Mr Speaker, but this is an important one and I share the hon. Member’s concerns. We regularly meet Ofcom to discuss the performance of Royal Mail, and I will certainly write to him about the discussions we have in respect of his constituency.

What discussions has the Minister had with his counterpart in Northern Ireland about encouraging young people into casual hospitality employment, to teach them about the benefits of work and the importance of managing money?

I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. We always seek to keep colleagues in Northern Ireland well briefed on a range of issues, particularly some of the complexities around trade that have come out of the Windsor agreement and need to be managed carefully. I do not think I have had a specific conversation about the matter he raises, but this is a good opportunity to say that I think I should, and I will. I am grateful to him for getting that on the record.

Will the Secretary of State be straightforward with the House today about how much taxpayers’ money has been spent so far on British Steel?

The amount of working capital provided to British Steel to date stands at £94 million, which is considerably less than if we had given a large amount of money to Jingye, or if we had had to deal with the complete loss of the entire British Steel site and business.

Modelling by the Scottish Government has shown that Brexit-made barriers are likely to have reduced Scottish exports by £3 billion, compared with continued EU membership. Greater co-operation and a closer relationship with the EU will always be encouraged by SNP Members, but does the Secretary of State recognise that anything short of full single market and customs union membership continues to damage Scotland’s economy?

In substantive terms, the hon. Gentleman’s point is important: we should be looking to reduce unnecessary barriers to trade between the United Kingdom and our friends, neighbours and partners in the European Union. However, on a political level, it is worth recognising that, had Scotland voted in 2014 to leave the United Kingdom, it would also have left the European Union. There is a certain irony in being told that a politics of flags, borders and manufactured grievances are wrong in one context, when his party continues to argue for them in another.

According to reports in The Guardian, Government sources have said that issues around visas have been resolved as part of the Government’s free trade agreement negotiations with India. Will the Secretary of State rule out visa liberalisation as part of those negotiations?

We should always be careful about what we read in some newspapers. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman knows that we cannot give a running commentary on trade negotiations, but the UK-India talks have been fruitful this week. I am optimistic and excited for the future of what is a key relationship bilaterally and for the signal it can send to the rest of the world.