Sarah Jones MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Jun 2025 · Space Industry · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I join everybody else in congratulating the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) not just on securing the debate, but on the quality of the debate and the leadership he has shown as chair of the APPG for space. We have had an excellent debate and a lot of shared issues have been brought up. I was struck by the range of different parts of the country in which the space industry is thriving. It is important to understand and acknowledge that. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest set out the case for the space industry. I do not think I need to repeat any of that, but he spoke about understanding the economic and productivity benefits, as well as the huge benefits to humanity, of satellite technology; how we can mitigate the challenges that the world faces through space; the opportunities for other sectors, such as finance, that are increasingly becoming part of this landscape; and the role of Government as a supporter of space but also as a customer. All those points were very well made. He also talked about the work that UKspace does—it is right that we acknowledge the importance of that organisation—and about businesses from the SMEs to the larger companies, and the ecosystem as a whole. I will come to a number of points, but one of the most important is that, in a couple of weeks, we will have our industrial strategy, which will set out and prioritise the sectors in advanced manufacturing that are crucial and where this Government intend to turbocharge growth. I cannot reveal the contents of the strategy, but I can say that we are on the verge of having it, and I hope that everyone here will appreciate what is in it. Later this year, we will hopefully see, for the first time, British satellites on British rockets launching from Scotland. I am putting in my bid to be there, and everyone else is welcome to do the same. I imagine it will be quite a thing to see; it is very exciting. We will also host a global space finance summit at the end of this year. I hope that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest will be able to come to that event, which I think will be an important and useful opportunity to bring in the finance element of this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) talked about Jodrell Bank and the Lovell telescope, and made important points about STEM education— I think pretty much everyone mentioned the importance of that. We have set up Skills England and, through our industrial strategy, we are working with the Department for Education to ensure that we tilt towards the courses that we need. Of course, STEM is key to that. My hon. Friend was also right to talk about the north-west cluster. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) talked about Goonhilly and the importance of that resource to the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) talked about that, too, and about the importance of Spaceport Cornwall and the skills there. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about Northern Ireland, as he always does. He was right to highlight the importance of the defence and aerospace industry there and, in that context, the continued importance of the debate on Spirit. I think we can all be grateful that we were in this place when he said, “Beam me up, Scotty!”—I enjoyed that contribution. As the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) said, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) hit the nail directly on the head, as he always does in relation to many different sectors. He talked about going down the Boulby mine, the cluster in the north-east and the importance of avoiding the valley of death scenario that we face in many different sectors, where we get brilliant research but do not quite manage to bring it to commercialisation, it goes offshore and we lose all that talent. Those were all very good points, well made. I was asked by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest about the national debris mission. It is going through the next stage of approvals and is a live procurement, so I cannot comment on it, but I wanted to ensure that I responded on that. We have all talked about the importance of our space industry here in the UK. It is the largest in Europe by revenue, by number of companies and by workforce, and, as was mentioned, it is one of the most productive parts of our economy, with almost 2.5 times the average labour productivity. As the Minister for Industry, in the past year I have had the opportunity to visit and speak to many of those fast-growing space companies. They include homegrown talents such as Space Forge, which I am sure several of us will have met, and BAE Systems, and companies from overseas that have chosen the UK as one of their homes, including ClearSpace and Lockheed Martin. I have had the opportunity to talk to them about their plans for growth and how the Government can support their ambitions, as well as engaging with the trade associations UKspace and ADS, which so keenly support our industry. As I said, the industrial strategy will come out in a couple of weeks. It will be a 10-year long-term plan. One of the eight growth-driving sectors that we have identified is advanced manufacturing, and we will use the strategy to engage with businesses on the complex areas of policy that we need to address, including finance, planning, energy costs and grid connections, so that we can promote long-term growth. We want to help more space companies to industrialise, and that means better access to finance and more strategic ways of working with individual space companies. It also means concentrating our efforts on a more targeted portfolio of space capabilities. In other words, we already do this well, so let us take full advantage of that and get a competitive edge. For example, we know that space technologies and services play a vital role in climate action, maritime domain monitoring, telecommunications, the gig economy and apps that rely on persistent positioning. The UK is already strong in the services and applications that space technology enables. Ensuring that space companies can overcome the complex and capital-intensive challenges to excel in these areas will be key to growing the industry now and in the future. We also want to create a more resilient supply chain, which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest talked about, while improving regulations, which will be needed to enable more activities in our space industry. Of course, DBT does a lot of work in this policy area, but other Departments are important too—I will come to the challenges in a minute. Of course, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology takes a lead, and the MOD, which published its new strategic defence review last week, is clear that being first in NATO means accelerating and enhancing our military space capability, so it recognises that there is more to do. We need to go further and faster, especially working with commercial companies. Towards the end of this year, all Departments will publish clear delivery plans that set out their priorities for space, their capabilities and exactly how we will work to deliver those priorities. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the challenges that he had in government navigating the many industries that are responsible for space. We inherited that challenge and have not entirely resolved it. So many Departments have an interest in space for legitimate, very good reasons. A group of Ministers has met to talk about the challenge, and we are planning what to do. I am sure that as soon as we have anything to say on that front, we will come back to the hon. Gentleman. I recognise the challenge. So many things are happening in space, so many aspects of our lives are affected by it, and so many Ministers have a huge interest in it. That will always be the way, and we need to navigate that in a way that enables us to be laser focused on our priorities. We have a clear strategy and we are very ambitious about what we want to achieve. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing a debate on this topic. We are absolutely committed to supporting our fantastic space industry, and are already investing in and supporting it. Last month, I celebrated Space Forge’s latest fundraising round, in which it secured £22.6 million. I was pleased to announce the opening of OHB’s new base in Bristol at the Farnborough international airshow—I think the hon. Gentleman was there. Earlier this week, I announced the Government’s support for a space industry partnership between BAE Systems in the UK and Hanwha Systems in South Korea, which is a massive step forward for one of the UK’s leading companies. We have really strong examples of international partnerships, the financial impact and the foreign impact, showcasing the power of our space industry to reach out around the world.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Reducing Industrial Electricity Prices · Hansard source

  More

  Industrial energy prices doubled under the previous Government and industry suffered, as did consumers, when wholesale prices rocketed at the start of the Ukraine war. The best way to secure bills for the long term—for industry, as well as for consumers—is to deliver clean power by 2030. The truth is that the Tories ran down our energy infrastructure, just as they ran down our road and rail infrastructure and our public services. We are rebuilding that infrastructure, making it more secure for the long term and less reliant on foreign dictators, thus giving us energy independence, good jobs and cheaper bills.

• 22 Apr 2025 · British Steel · Hansard source

  More

  I have met representatives from Union Electric Steel—everyone still calls it Davy Roll. The supply chain is incredibly important, and we are looking at it in our plan for steel. However, the investments made across Government more broadly over the years show that that supply chain, in whichever area of manufacturing it is found, has not been protected. The Ministry of Defence is keen to secure the supply chain in the UK for the investment that we are putting into defence, whether in aerospace, advanced manufacturing or space. We need to build supply chain capacity here in the UK because the world has changed and we have different priorities now, and my hon. Friend is right to raise that.

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House not just for participating in this debate, but for returning to this place in these exceptional circumstances. There seems to be some debate about it, but I think this is the sixth time since the second world war that we have met on a Saturday, and only the second time that the House has been recalled on a Saturday—the other being during the Falklands war. Before I respond to Members’ comments, I echo the point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his opening remarks: this Government will never hesitate to protect our steel industry and the thousands of steel workers in this country who built it. We always said, from the outset of our negotiations with Jingye, that we would keep every option on the table and would act in the national interest to protect jobs. UK-forged steel built our railways, bridges and buildings. It is integral to our economy’s future, just as much as it has been to our rich industrial past. That is why we need to pass this legislation today. I will try to address as many of the points raised as I can. Members made the argument for British Steel. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) pointed out that 95% of Network Rail steel is from British Steel. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) pointed out that TfL would not get anywhere were it not for steel. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), who has such expertise, pointed out that steel is the future and everything we have is made from or with steel. I can reassure the House that our plan for steel—the £2.5 billion that we committed to in the manifesto—will work to break down the trade barriers that we have on steel, consider the all new technologies that we can introduce, and look across the whole of the UK to ensure that we protect steel everywhere.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Scunthorpe Steelworks · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member’s premise that we need to ensure that we have steel production in the UK, although there is some nuance around some of this. High-quality steel is being made, as we speak, for defence purposes by electric arc furnaces. That is perfectly possible; we melt scrap and add about 20% of primary steel. For some things, depending on what we are making—I know too much about the steel industry now—we do not need any primary steel. We are conducting a review of primary steel, which will be finished shortly. Again, neither Tata nor British Steel is a critical supplier to defence programmes at the moment, but we need that steel production, as I said before, so that we can build whatever we might need in the future. Of course, we will work cross-party; if that is his offer, it is very gladly taken.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Scunthorpe Steelworks · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and for welcoming the Prime Minister’s announcements today on the zero emission vehicle mandate and the changes we have made to support the automotive industry, which is incredibly important. The hon. Gentleman talks about the number of good steel jobs that have gone forever or are at risk, but that happened because the previous Government failed to intervene to support our steel industry. That is why we lost so many jobs over the last decade. Not having an industrial strategy or a plan for steel meant that we allowed offshoring of our jobs in the steel sector, which has damaged us. He rightly said that in many key parts of our country we need good jobs. I should say that steel produced really good jobs, which are better paid than the average in the area and are done by really good, qualified people we want to retain in the UK. The hon. Gentleman talked about energy. Again, the reason why we are here is that we had years of the previous Government not intervening in this space. We are well aware of energy prices in this country and are doing all we can to bring those down. [ Interruption. ] I was asked by the hon. Gentleman to redouble my efforts in the negotiations we are having with British Steel. I will do everything that I possibly can—as we are doing. I hope he understands that I cannot go into detail about the state of those negotiations because that would be bad for the workers, bad for our supply chains and bad for the outcome. The hon. Gentleman talked about national security and primary steel. We are conducting a review of primary steel as part of our plan for steel and we will have the results of that soon. We will look at those results and see what we need to do. I should stress that there is defence equipment made in the UK from electric arc furnaces; there is not much defence work either in British Steel or at Tata in Port Talbot at the moment. People such as Sheffield Forgemasters produce steel from electric arc furnaces. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the importance of national security and to say that the world has changed and things have moved on, so we need to ensure that we are protecting our country as we need to. As I said in the Chamber in response to the last urgent question on this issue, there is a reason why Putin bombed the blast furnaces in Ukraine pretty much first: it was because a country wants to have that steelmaking capacity. We are alive to those issues, and that is why nothing is off the table. We are doing everything that we can.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Scunthorpe Steelworks · Hansard source

  More

  I do not recognise that framing at all. We are in a better position than many other countries in terms of the strength of our relationship with the US and the building up of relationships that has happened over recent months. As I said, the Secretary of State is in regular talks with his counterparts and we are having constructive talks with our counterparts. We cannot go into the details of those negotiations, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we have a cool head, we know what we want and we will do what is best for our industries in the long run. On the matter of primary steel and steelmaking in the UK, we need our defence and our security to have strong, vibrant steelmaking production in the UK. There are different ways to do that, including with different technologies, which are moving all the time. That is why the steel strategy needs to anticipate where technology is going and make sure we get that right.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Scunthorpe Steelworks · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, you will recognise the conversations that we are having from your experience as Minister of State in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The Opposition seem to have a new-found enthusiasm for virgin steelmaking that in government they did not have at all. We will make sure that we are doing the right thing. [ Interruption. ] I do not have time to go into this conversation at this point, but I will be very happy to have it with the right hon. Gentleman. There are some important points to note, including that we make a lot of our steel for defence not from primary steel but in electric arc furnaces. It is about getting the right mix. That is what we will make sure we do.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Scunthorpe Steelworks · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he has represented his constituents today and engaged with us previously. On the point of clarity, I confirm that we would rather the blast furnaces remained open. He knows that if they closed before a supply of steel were secured, that would be significant in terms of customer confidence and what will happen to the customer base. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about defence, as was said at the Business and Trade Committee yesterday, there was a reason why the Russians bombed the blast furnaces in Ukraine first: steelmaking capacity is needed not just for defence, but for building the structures required for construction. He was therefore absolutely right on that front. This morning, I met the council and talked about both the plans for us to work together on British Steel and the wider question of what else we can do in the region and how the Government can support that. A small ministerial team has been coming together to think about those things. On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, as he knows, the amount of money that we are talking about to develop new infrastructure is significant. Our preferred approach by far is that British Steel comes back to the table, talks with us about the offer on the table and we have that private sector investment in the future, but of course we are looking at all options.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Shipyards: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) on securing such an important debate. I thank him for quoting Donald Dewar in the first speech of the Scottish Parliament in 1998. I worked in an office next to Donald Dewar for a couple of years and he was an incredible man. He also said in that speech: “We are fallible. We will make mistakes. But we will never lose sight of what brought us here: the striving to do right by the people of Scotland; to respect their priorities; to better their lot; and to contribute to the commonweal.” The debate this afternoon has shown that many Members are carrying on in that spirit and acting in that way on behalf of their constituents. One of the first issues that crossed our desks when we came to power last July was the challenge with Harland and Wolff. We were faced with a dilemma: if we had, as the shadow Minister suggested, thrown money immediately at the problem, we would have been throwing good money after bad. That was clear to anybody who had any sight of what was happening, but it was also clear that we were in a perilous position and we wanted to make sure that the Government could do whatever they could to save all four yards. There was a big push, for a number of reasons including the contracts that existed, to think about Belfast, and not to think about the four yards together. A collective piece of work was done in which I played a small part and my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes and Mid Fife and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), who has the Arnish port in his constituency, as well as the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Defence and my boss the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, played a large part. They all wanted to make sure we could do some kind of deal. When I was sat in the Ministry of Defence with Navantia, we were scratching our heads and thinking, “What on earth needs to be done here?” It was a big piece of work, with a lot of hard work around the clock from officials. The Prime Minister intervened because he saw the importance of this good piece of work. My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife made the important point that we did not want to do this work out of a sense of charity. It was because the people at Methil, in his case, are enormously skilled, offering the possibility of future contracts and operations. We did not see it as charity; we saw it as protecting the talent we have in this country, and wanting to see it grow. When I had the privilege of going to Methil to meet and talk to some of the 200 workers, 50 of whom are apprentices, it was apparent that this was a place—though cold—where we built the things that defined the 20th century, and can also be where we build the things that will define the decades to come. It is important to keep that in mind. I want to touch on an issue many hon. Members raised about the Scottish Government, procurement and the award going to a Polish shipyard. I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey) about that earlier today. He questioned why Poland had been chosen over Port Glasgow, which was a good question to ask. I know Anas Sarwar has also been asking questions. I heard the intervention about phase 2, and perhaps there is something to be pulled and gained from this, though what has transpired is a shame. There is a question about procurement, which both we and the Minister for Defence Procurement are looking at. We will keep doing that, including considering the Procurement Act 2023. I will soon be talking to that Minister, not only in this area but on steel, to see what more we can do.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Shipyards: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I will bow to his wisdom as to why and how that situation has transpired, but for sure the ferry service is crucial for people’s lives, wellbeing and health. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) said, a ferry service is not just about identity; it is also about basic necessities and lifelines. So, I agree with my hon. Friend that there does not appear to have been good management of the ferries by the SNP, but sadly we are not overly surprised by that. There were lots of good contributions to the debate about the role that shipbuilding can play and about some of the issues that we need to look at. We have talked a lot about defence. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife, who secured this debate, has about 350 workers in his constituency who work for Babcock and we are really pleased that the Government have committed to the 2.5% spending on defence going up to 3%. I have talked to the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, and of course we all think that the increase in defence spending presents an opportunity to do more here in the UK. I am working with colleagues to make sure that we get that right. The whole point of the industrial strategy, which the Conservative party was ideologically opposed to, is to bring together the things that we do really well and ensure that all the levers of Government are tilted in the direction of turbocharging those sectors. Defence is one of those sectors, but historically defence has sort of worked to one side and everybody else has worked to another side. We are trying to bring those two together a bit, so that civil and defence can work together, learn with each other and prioritise all that activity from Government, to make sure that, as I say, we are turbocharging those eight sectors, one of which is defence. There was a lot of talk about apprenticeships. The spokesperson for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, talked about the apprenticeships that were set up under the last Government. Sadly, the apprenticeship levy does not work for a lot of people and we have shortages in professions such as welding. Indeed, welders have been on the Migration Advisory Committee list of people who we can procure from other countries because we are not training enough of our own. So, to see those welders in Methil learning their trade was a great thing. It was also great to hear the senior managers at Navantia talk to me about welding, because they actually know about shipbuilding and welding; they have real expertise. That was really encouraging. We are reforming the apprenticeship levy, we are talking about how we can ensure that companies invest more in apprenticeships, and we are again looking at how we can tilt the whole skills regime towards the professions that we know we will need in the future. Engineers, welders and electricians are all on the list of the professions we need to boost in the future. Members also talked about the opportunity provided by offshore wind and the green economy, as it were, more widely. As has been said already, Navantia plans to make Methil the centre of excellence for offshore wind manufacturing. There is also green shipbuilding, which is a burgeoning industry, and there is the whole infrastructure of monopiles and floating jackets—all of those possibilities—as well. I have also talked to the industry about the opportunities to lead the way in autonomous systems and robotics. When we pull together the industrial strategy, the defence spending, our reforms to apprenticeships and our prioritisation of funding, including the Cromarty Firth example, the National Wealth Fund—with £5.3 billion for clean, green energy in five groupings, one of which is ports—and the clean industry bonus, which is another opportunity to support growth in this sector, it is clear that the Government have a plan. That has been lacking in previous years, but we are not afraid to roll up our sleeves and get things done. We are all invested in the shipbuilding industry for reasons relating to the past and, more importantly, the future. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) talked about women in boatbuilding. I spend quite a lot of time with a lot of men in the industries I work with. That was a good point, well made. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) made a good point about the importance of spending taxpayers’ money wisely in this space and not throwing good money after bad. I have talked about that already. We need to back winners and use that money as wisely as we can. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his kind words. He made the point that shipbuilding used to employ tens of thousands of people, but now it employs hundreds to a couple of thousand. We are realistic about that. We are talking about a smaller industry because of the changing nature of how ships are built, but it is still very important. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) talked about procurement, which I have touched on already—it is very important. It is nice that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) saw the electric ferry bought in Norway, for Norway, but that speaks to a point that we are all looking at: we want do more in the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West said that shipbuilding is a lifeline, a kind of identity and an opportunity for economic growth. I agree with that, of course. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) mentioned Captain Cook and the Endeavour. I did not know about that, but I now do. She talked about skills and apprenticeships, which I have touched on. She is absolutely right that they are very important. This is an incredibly important area for the Government. We have put our money where our mouth is and are ready to do what needs to be done. The industrial strategy, the apprenticeship work and the defence spending present huge opportunities for the future, and I look forward to working with everyone here to deliver them.

• 6 Mar 2025 · North Sea Energy · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. We know that energy bills have been rising because of the oil and gas we rely on and the impact of the war in Ukraine. We have massively increased the warm home discount so that 6 million households will get £150 to help towards their energy bills, but he is right to champion people who are going through a cost of living crisis. We will do what we can to support them.

• 6 Mar 2025 · North Sea Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I do not agree with that framing whatsoever. We have Putin who invaded Ukraine, leading to the massive global shock for energy prices, and we have a Secretary of State who is very pragmatically taking forward plans to, as the triangle tells us, protect and grow jobs, and give us energy security. I think most people in the country understand that. They get that we need energy security and to tackle the climate at the same time.

• 6 Mar 2025 · North Sea Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. On upskilling and redeploying workers, as I said previously, we are introducing the passporting scheme and making sure that we can break down the barriers that exist in different industries, because the skills and talents of people working in oil and gas can be transferred to renewable energy. We want to make sure that we do that. The hon. Lady talks about vulnerable residents and the cost of heating, and she is absolutely right to do so. We have all suffered from the huge cost of living crisis caused by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. We are doing what we can, and 6 million people will now get the £150 warm homes discount this winter, which will help with their energy bills. The hon. Lady asks about the windfall tax. The clue is in the name: it is a tax on windfall profits. While the oil and gas industry is making windfall profits, there will be a windfall tax; when it is not, there will not be. That is the way the scheme works, but her points on the need to insulate homes—we are working at pace on that—and to support vulnerable people are absolutely right. The basic principle is that we have an energy bill rise driven by fossil fuels, so we must move to home-grown power for our energy security and for long-term bill reductions.

• 4 Mar 2025 · North Staffordshire Ceramics Industry: Energy Costs · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) for securing this important debate. I begin by echoing his thanks to the trade unions, the industry and Ceramics UK for all they do. I have engaged with Ceramics UK quite a bit since taking up this role, and previously in opposition, and I work closely with the unions and the industry. My hon. Friend clearly laid out the challenges we face, as well as the challenges facing his community’s disposable household incomes, and the importance of getting this right. He is right to look to the future of ceramics, not to the past. There are several industries that we want to grow in the UK, but we have historically focused on the past—steel is a case in point—not the future. My hon. Friend talks about new advanced technologies, and the important uses of ceramics in our mobile phones, our aircraft, our defence and our medical equipment are clear to see, though little understood by those outside this sector. We can all do more to make sure people understand the ceramics industry and what it is for. The industrial strategy is one way to do that. As my hon. Friend knows, the industrial strategy is coming out in the spring. We promised it for years in opposition, and the previous Government but one tried, but they did not persevere. We have identified eight growth sectors within the strategy—advanced manufacturing is one of them—but foundational industries have to power those growth sectors, which is where ceramics is important. I nod to my hon. Friend’s well-made point about defence, which is one of the growth sectors in the industrial strategy. Over the last few days, we have seen this Government’s commitment to increasing our defence spending. The Chancellor spoke at the Make UK conference today about how we can change defence procurement to include more of this country’s SMEs. We have also been creative in using UK Export Finance to create jobs with Thales in Belfast. There is more we can do, and I will take away my hon. Friend’s point about advanced ceramic carbon filters. I suspect there are other potential applications in this space. I acknowledge and appreciate the very real challenges that my hon. Friend raises. The cost of energy bills is very difficult for the ceramics industry and other energy-intensive industries. Every one of us has suffered from the huge price hike after Russia invaded Ukraine, although our energy costs are not comparable with those of our neighbours. My hon. Friend also highlighted how electricity costs so much more than gas and the challenges that will bring as we decarbonise. He mentioned the emissions trading scheme and the ongoing consultation on free allowances. I also heard his well-made points about the low carbon transition and the challenges for sectors such as ceramics, where its up-front cost is potentially prohibitive.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Manufacturing and Engineering (Northern Ireland) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for introducing today’s debate in his usual style of gentle persistence, and for the birthday message that he sent me back in December. I think he is the only Member of Parliament who sends birthday messages to every MP. The care with which he treats all of us is an example to us all. I have a list here of all the good things about Northern Ireland manufacturing. The hon. Member has listed most of them already. For the benefit of the House, I will not repeat the case that he has made; I will just set out a few things about the Government’s approach. First, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I, and others, were in Northern Ireland when we were able to announce a successful outcome on the Harland and Wolff deal. When we first came to power last July, it was one of the early industries in distress that came across our desks. We were faced with the possible collapse of Harland and Wolff, and there was absolutely no way we could allow that to happen. We all worked very hard to ensure that there was a deal that worked both for the Ministry of Defence, in terms of the fleet solid support contract for Navantia, and its commercial interests and what it could do, and for the workers of Harland and Wolff. We did not do that because we are good people and we did not want to see job losses, although those things are true; we did it because the four Harland and Wolff sites are of incredible strategic importance to us. As it happens, I was in Methil yesterday, the Harland and Wolff site in Fife, where there is a huge future for offshore wind. The site can build part of that future. Sometimes we look through misty eyes at what has happened in the past in Belfast, and what Harland and Wolff used to be. The way we see it is: let us look at what it can be in the future, and how important it is. Of course it is important for people to have good well-paid jobs, but it is the talent and expertise they bring—which I see in spades in Northern Ireland every time I go; the enthusiasm, the talent, the training and the apprenticeship programmes—that mean we can build the future we want to see. They will be very important for our defence, but the whole ecosystem the hon. Gentleman talked about is very important for our future. What support can the Government bring to ensure that people continue to flourish and thrive? First, we want to work collaboratively across the nations in a way that is productive and useful. I chair the business and industry inter-ministerial group in the Department for Business and Trade. At our first meeting, the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland were there, too. What we can do collectively that helps all our nations is really important. Secondly, the Government set the structure, through the industrial strategy, and a direction of travel that industry can understand. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are developing the industrial strategy. There are eight growth sectors where we think there is the biggest capacity for growth. We are working on honing down what the sub-sectors are within that. Advanced manufacturing, defence and green energy are all key areas that we have identified as opportunities for growth and Northern Ireland has such a role to play in that space. That architecture, which will provide the long-term stability over the next five to 10 years, will be really important and helpful. The third bit of architecture is our universities, colleges, catapults, Innovate UK and all the other networks that help us to come up with new ideas and new businesses. I met Catapult Network chief executives this morning. They told me about—they were keen that I mention it in this debate, as I said I was coming here—some of the innovative work going on through the catapults in Northern Ireland. They are working with Invest Northern Ireland on hydrogen, which will accelerate supply chains for the hydrogen economy. They are working with Queen’s University Belfast to ensure that Northern Ireland’s manufacturing businesses can connect into national capabilities and help address future challenges. There is a lot of good work going on there. The next bit of architecture is how we help all those businesses in Northern Ireland to export. I was in Saudi Arabia two weeks ago, alongside Invest Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland businesses, which were taking their huge talent and, I hope, doing some good deals. There was a business—I might get this wrong and have to tell Hansard to correct this—that makes kit that washes sand. It has washed 99% of the sand that needs to be washed—I am going to stop trying to go into detail!—in Qatar. It was a very small business in Northern Ireland that was, basically, providing a service to Qatar that nobody else could do. That was quite extraordinary, but that is the talent we have coming out of Northern Ireland and we want to work with Invest NI on that. We need to get the right architecture in place to ensure the future is bright. I think what the hon. Gentleman also wants me to talk about is how we protect what we have. He made a very good case on Spirit and how it is not just the jobs, but the supply chain and all interactions. He used some very interesting statistics on the potential impact of closures. What I will say in this space is, first, that we all want the same thing. Secondly, just to correct the record, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) has met the trade unions to talk about that. I was at Spirit on 19 December and talked about the future. I have talked to all interested parties in this space. Collectively as a Government—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—we are trying to do what we can. It is a complex situation, as we know, and there are layers of complexity in terms of who does what. We are trying to do what we can. Government can only do what they can in trying to bring people together, come up with solutions and talk to those interested parties, but I think we are pushing in the right direction. Although I cannot click my finger and have the answer that the hon. Gentleman wants this evening, I can give him the commitment that we are doing what we can. If he has suggestions as to further meetings we could hold and things we could do, of course, I would be very happy to do that. I am having conversations regularly on Short Brothers and Spirit AeroSystems, as the hon. Gentleman would expect. I am talking to the aerospace industry, Boeing and all the interested parties.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her question, for her defence of her constituency and for her ambitions, which we share. I believe the report she refers to came out before this Labour Government came to power. With our new policies and the new drive and ambition from our Secretaries of State for Business and Trade and for Energy Security and Net Zero, we are powering forward with our renewable agenda, and we will make sure that all of our growth driving sectors speak to my hon. Friend’s area and everyone’s area of the country and drive growth across the board.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I am really pleased my hon. Friend held that roundtable. It is quite a turning point to have an industrial strategy with defence as one of the sectors; building new relationships across Departments with colleagues who work in defence is a really powerful and important thing to do. He speaks to a wider problem face by a lot of industry when it comes to dealing with Government agencies and Departments. We are working hard to make these things easier, because growth is our priority and we have to break down those barriers.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Solar Farms: Agricultural Land · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on securing this important debate and the number of interventions she received in such a short period of time reflects the strength of feeling. Before I set out the Government’s approach, I reassure the hon. Lady and her constituents that we agree on most things in this space. We agree that we should be using renewables—whatever they are, wherever they are—in the best way possible. We agree that we need to look at our responsibilities in terms of the climate, agriculture, the countryside and food production. The Government take all those responsibilities very seriously and look them at very carefully. We agree that if we are building solar panels, for example, we should build on brownfield sites first. If we cannot, we should build on areas of lower-quality land first. We agree that food security is enormously important for this country. In the global conditions we find ourselves in, where there is more uncertainty—as we saw with the war in Ukraine and what followed with our energy prices—we need to be mindful of those things. When it comes to the principles, we agree. I will set out the Government’s overall approach to our clean power mission, which might help to put the debate in context. We, like the hon. Member for South Cotswolds, have been clear from the start that the only way to tackle climate change, secure our energy supply, bring down bills and drive economic growth is through clean energy. The rapid deployment of clean energy infrastructure is essential for our future security and economy.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Business: Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  We love a long question, and it was a good one. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, one that we are all of course concerned about. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the global chief executive officer of Airbus last week, and I have met representatives of Airbus, Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems and talked about this issue. We care about those jobs and about the future of our defence industry in the UK—it is incredibly important to us for many reasons—so we are doing what we can to make sure there is a good outcome.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Critical Minerals: Domestic Production · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, and a pleasure to speak in such an important debate. I congratulate Parliament’s official tin champion, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), on securing this debate. I thank him for the conversations we have already had about tin in particular and critical minerals more broadly; it is a joy to have someone with such enthusiasm, passion and knowledge joining us in Parliament. My hon. Friend has already done much in his time in Parliament to support critical minerals—tin, in particular —in his area, and he is an active member of the all-party parliamentary group, to which he brings genuine passion. I look forward to visiting his constituency in the spring or the early part of 2025 to talk more about what can be done in his area. His speech summed up the challenges and opportunities very well. He spoke about what more we can do, and how that will impact on economic deprivation and help our country’s security. He pointed to many interventions that he thinks the Government should be looking at, which I will come to later. We are developing a strategy that will cover a lot of the issues. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about Northern Ireland and the engagement that the UK Government should be having with colleagues there. He is right that a UK strategy could not be developed without engaging our partners—and I can absolutely give him that reassurance. He talked about mining in Northern Ireland, and about salt. I recommend that he reads a book called “Material World: A Substantial Story of Our Past and Future” by Ed Conway, if he has not already done so; it includes a whole chapter on salt and how important it is for the world, which is fascinating. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) talked sensibly about the south-west and the opportunities that can come from critical minerals. He talked about the Camborne School of Mines, and about what more we can do on skills. I will come to that later. The spokesperson for the Lib Dems, the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), made a thoughtful speech, a lot of which I agreed with. I think he will be pleased with what we have done. He referenced, as did the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), the previous Government’s strategy. That strategy was brought in by Kwasi Kwarteng—remember him?—who a couple of months later became the ill-fated Chancellor of the Exchequer; he probably looks back on that strategy with some wistfulness about what he managed to achieve. What I would say about the previous Government’s strategy is that it included a lot of, “We would like to do more of this”, “We want to do a little bit more of that”, and “We would like to encourage this”, but it did not set any particular targets, or have any deliverables or accountability. In fact, the Foreign Affairs Committee criticised it for its lack of ambition and progress; I think that speaks for itself. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk made a slightly bizarre speech, in which he referenced the 18 critical minerals. There was an announcement last week, which has been referenced by several Members, that there are no longer 18 but 34 critical minerals. I know it is difficult being in opposition—there is a lot less support than there is in government—but I would expect the shadow Minister to be up to date on these things. The shadow Minister also raised the electric vehicle mandates. To be clear, the previous Government pushed back the ultimate target from 2030 to 2035, but did not push back any of the stage posts by which car manufacturers had to reach that target. He said that this Government have tied themselves in knots, but the reality is that we have inherited those knots; they are the problems that we are now dealing with. We are having to consult on and look again at some of the issues, because the car manufacturers are crying out for support. Everybody who has spoken talked about how important critical minerals are for the industries of tomorrow and how much more we will need them in the future. Whether it is in advanced manufacturing, clean energy, defence or digital technologies, we know that we will need more. Last week, the Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre published its latest list of critical minerals, increasing the number from 18 to 34 and adding the likes of nickel, aluminium and titanium to the UK’s criticality list. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth was very pleased that tin is now on the list as well. I thank the British Geological Survey, which runs this process, for the task it undertook, and for its vital work looking at the volume and variety of materials and minerals needed for our economic growth and clean energy ambitions. Economic growth is the absolute driving force of this Government, which is why we have published our industrial strategy Green Paper and will publish the final industrial strategy in the spring. It will bring stability and a long-term plan, and will break down all barriers to growth, including skills, technology and R&D. It will be the blueprint for growth in our most important sectors. If growth is the vehicle that gets us to a pro-innovation, pro-worker, pro-jobs economy, then critical minerals is the fuel at the heart of that strategy. I am pleased to confirm that the Department for Business and Trade will publish a critical minerals strategy next year, which will support the industries of tomorrow, explicitly target UK strengths, articulate the impacts on people’s lives, deliver for businesses and create new jobs across the country. The strategy will be ambitious. I want it to set targets. It will cover domestic production, the circular economy, the UK’s future demand, international partnerships, and responsible and transparent supply chains. In partnership with our stakeholders, we will consider the best way to track progress to ensure that we can be held to account for delivering on our promises. Starting with domestic production, I know that in Cornwall and Devon we have several promising lithium, tungsten and tin mines seeking to restart commercial production, which we have talked about at length. Since coming to power, we have seen progress made across multiple projects, including Imerys British Lithium, Tungsten West and Cornish Metals. Already we have seen interest from overseas, with like-minded allies partnering with UK projects, as represented by Rio Tinto’s strategic partnership with Green Lithium, the low-carbon lithium refinery in Teesside. One key tool is the national wealth fund, which we announced within days of coming to office. The national wealth fund recognises the importance of a secure supply of critical minerals and has a clear mandate to support them, as evidenced by its £24 million investment in Cornish Lithium.

• 16 Oct 2024 · Steel Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I think I was fairly clear. We have been in opposition. We want to produce primary steel in this country; the previous Government got us to a point where that is almost impossible without huge investment. We are supplying £2.5 billion of investment and looking, quite rightly, at the best way to spend that to create a viable steel future for this country. We are looking at direct reduced iron as part of our steel strategy, which the previous Government did not do. The UK’s ambition is to ramp up investment. Many hon. Members talked of the need to procure British steel in this country, and we are now in a situation where 95% of the steel procured by the UK Government for infrastructure is British, if the necessary type of steel is made in the UK. The issue is that we do not produce all the different and right types of steel, so we need to ensure that we use the Procurement Act 2023 as much as we can to drive economic growth in steel. I disagree with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness on whether the green agenda can drive up jobs—we think that it can. For example, the Korean company SeAH is building a factory in Teesside that will build monopiles, which are the big structures that go into the ocean and anchor wind turbines. It is currently building that structure with 30,000 tonnes of steel from British Steel. We want to get to a point where we are not only building those kinds of factories in this country but using British steel where we can to make the infrastructure. At the moment, we do not have a factory that makes turbines on the scale that we need for floating offshore wind, but SeAH is building that factory because it has an agreement with RWE, which will be running the turbines that it builds in future. That green job development into wind and renewable energy is driving our ability to build a factory in Teesside to create hundreds of jobs to build those monopiles, and we are using British steel. That is the kind of future that we want to see through the steel strategy; we are looking at those opportunities to bring new steel companies into this country and to find ways to drive up production in this country. I should address the issues holding us back, as they were mentioned in the debate. China and excess capacity is a huge issue that we should not underplay. China is now the biggest steel producer in the world and its unfair subsidies have led to massive steel over-production, which fuels global overcapacity and drives down prices. That is a global issue with local consequences that makes profitable steel production here in the UK much harder. That key global situation is helping to shape our future steel strategy and we will need to tackle that problem through things like the carbon border adjustment mechanism—CBAM—and ensure that we are working with a level playing field. Energy prices were mentioned by many Members, and for too long British energy-intensive industries, including the steel sector, have been held back by high electricity costs. Again, I disagree with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness: electricity prices are set by global gas prices and the problem is our dependence on fossil fuels, as well as the fact that we did not mitigate for that situation in this country at all. When all the prices shot up with the war in Ukraine, we were in a worse position than many countries around the world. The British industry supercharger that the previous Government developed, which the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) mentioned, will bring down electricity costs for the UK’s most energy intensive industries, but we know that we need to go further. It brings down only 60% of costs and there is still a disparity. We believe that, in an unstable world, cheap home-grown green energy is the future. That is what will drive down prices, reduce our exposure to the volatile fossil fuel market, protect bill payers and strengthen our energy independence. Fundamentally, that is what will bring down costs in the long term. Members also mentioned the challenges of decarbonisation. Tata and British Steel’s plans to invest in electric arc furnaces are driven by market conditions and the desire to reduce their carbon footprint—customers want greener steel. The UK is going to have a CBAM. If we were producing steel in the UK with blast furnaces, we would be massively inhibited because the EU is bringing in a CBAM, so the cost of exporting to the EU would be much higher. We have to deal with the world as we find it, which again is where we disagree with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness. We cannot look back and try to re-create the past; we have to deal with the world as we find it, which means that we have to move towards those more efficient and greener energies. The EU, where 78% of our steel exports went in 2023—that is worth pointing out—will bring in its carbon border adjustment mechanism in 2027. We rely on exporting a lot of the steel we produce to the EU, and we would be at a massive disadvantage were we to carry on producing steel from blast furnaces. We have committed to a UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, which will give UK businesses the confidence that, when they invest in decarbonisation and electrification, they will not be at a disadvantage. That is important. On other issues mentioned by hon. Members, I should touch on Scunthorpe, because that is at the forefront of everyone’s mind. No one wants to see any job losses, and everyone wants to see the steel industry thrive. Through our strategy, that is what we want to do. For commercially confidential reasons, which I am sure hon. Members understand, I cannot talk about our conversations with the owners, but I reassure Members that we are having conversations all the time and that we are working unbelievably hard to get a solution for Scunthorpe and to give the certainty that the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham talked about. I completely understand the issue with the instability of the current situation, but all I can say to him is that we are doing all we can to work with the company on what the future will be.

• 5 Sept 2024 · UK Steel Manufacturing · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who has much expertise in this area. The Department is working closely with the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Defence to make sure we are maintaining our defence. We are building as much as we can in the UK, with as many contracts in the UK as we can. We are using the power of Government to deliver that.

• 22 Jul 2024 · Aerospace Industry: Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted that the hon. Member has intervened in his own Adjournment debate. I will be there at the UK stand tomorrow, and we will see what Northern Ireland has on display. I will spend as much time there as I can. I am there for the whole day, so I hope that I will spend some good time there. As Members will be well aware, Northern Ireland has a long and impressive history in the aerospace industry. This Government are in lockstep with the sector’s ambitions to grow, compete on the world stage, and ease the transition to net zero flight. Today, the aerospace sector supports nearly 240,000 jobs, with almost half of those employees directly employed by aerospace companies. Some 5,000 of them are in Northern Ireland. The sector as a whole is worth some £30 billion. Despite all the achievements, we recognise that the past years have been challenging for the sector, with the chaos and uncertainty of the previous Government, and the global shocks of covid, the war in Ukraine and the disruption in the Red sea. We know that the impact of those issues persists.