UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Nusrat Ghani – 2023 Statement on EU Retained Law

    Nusrat Ghani – 2023 Statement on EU Retained Law

    The statement made by Nusrat Ghani, the Minister for Industry and Investment Security, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

    It is a pleasure to be here, and I thank all Members who have tabled new amendments and new clauses and who will speak in the debate. I also thank the members of the Public Bill Committee for their work.

    I will address the Government new clauses and amendments first, but I will say more about them in my closing speech when other Members have had a chance to contribute. I will also address some of the concerns that have been raised, and some of the misinformation about the Bill.

    The Government new clauses and amendments are minor and technical. They cover four areas. The first is updating the definition of “assimilated law” and how it should be interpreted, and, in the case law provisions, ensuring that the High Court of Justiciary is covered in all instances. I thank the Scottish Government for their engagement: there has been engagement between our officials and those in the Scottish Government, and with the Advocate General. Our new clauses also clarify the fact that the use of extension power also applies to amendments to retained EU law made between the extension regulations and the sunset, and clarify the application of clause 14 to codification as well as restatement. These are technical drafting measures, and I ask the House to support them.

    Let me now explain why the Bill is crucial for the UK. My explanation will directly cover many of the new clauses and amendments. The Bill will end the special status of retained EU law on the UK statute book by the end of 2023. It constitutes a process. Considerable work has been done with officials across Whitehall and with the devolved authorities; that work has been proportionate, and has been taking place for over 18 months. I cannot stress enough the importance of achieving the 2023 deadline. Retained EU law was never intended to sit on the statute book indefinitely. It is constitutionally undesirable, as some domestic laws, including Acts of Parliament, currently remain subordinate to some retained EU law. The continued existence on our statute book of the principle of supremacy of EU law is just not right, as we are a sovereign nation with a sovereign Parliament.

    Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

    We all accept that the status of EU law must change and that it will have to be reassimilated into domestic law in due course. No one argues with that. Will the Minister not reflect that it is constitutionally unacceptable to create what the Law Society—which might know a little more about the law than politicians and civil servants—described as a “devastating impact” on legal certainty and business confidence? To do so by means of Henry VIII powers so wide that all scrutiny is, in effect, removed from this House is not taking backing control but doing the reverse of what the Government seek to do.

    Ms Ghani

    I always respect my hon. Friend’s opinion, but he is fundamentally mistaken. We have undertaken a considerable amount of consultation with our courts and have worked with them consistently. It is absolutely right that we deliver Brexit by ensuring that laws made here are sovereign over EU laws.

    Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)

    My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) is fundamentally wrong. The Bill is providing legal certainty. Rather than having a flow of EU law interpreted according to EU principle, from now on we will have a single set of laws within this country. That must be certainty rather than otherwise.

    Ms Ghani

    Having a single set of laws across the UK will provide far more certainty.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Ms Ghani

    Before I take any more interventions, I want to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) about the Henry VIII powers. That is a misrepresentation of what is happening. Each Department will review and then amend, assimilate or revoke EU law. Each Department’s Secretary of State will be responsible for the decisions they take. All the laws are on the dashboard, which will be updated once again, and we will be codifying the retained EU law. In the absence of the application of supremacy, restating a rule in primary legislation could lead to the same policy effect as the rule itself currently has. The Bill just sets out a process to allow each Department to take a decision. Why would we not want to review the EU law that is out there and assess what needs to be assimilated? If we can amend and update it, why would we not do that?

    Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

    Notwithstanding the charmingly innocent faith in lawyers of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the key thing about our decision to leave the European Union is that sovereignty lies in this place and with the people to whom we are accountable. The point about this measure is that it will allow exactly that sovereignty to be exacted in practice with regard to retained EU law.

    Ms Ghani

    Absolutely. When decisions are taken either to amend or to revoke, the usual channels will be followed in Parliament. Committees will be put in place and decisions will be reviewed the Leaders of both Houses. Decisions can be taken openly and transparently. We also have the dashboard, which will be updated and already has thousands of EU laws on it.

    Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)

    The Minister is right that the whole point of Brexit was to take control of our own laws. She is also right that there needs to be a single set of laws across the United Kingdom. But the Bill makes it clear that we will not have a single set of laws across the United Kingdom, because a wide range of laws in Northern Ireland are exempt from the provisions of the Bill. Furthermore, in future when EU law changes and applies in Northern Ireland, the gap between the laws in the rest of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland will get ever wider. Does she accept that unless the protocol is dealt with, there is a real danger that Northern Ireland will be treated differently and be constitutionally separated from the United Kingdom?

    Ms Ghani

    My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue. As it is sensitive, he must allow me a moment to ensure that my response is accurate. The UK Government are committed to ensuring that the necessary legislation is in place to uphold the UK’s international obligations, including the Northern Ireland protocol and the trade and co-operation agreement after the sunset date. The Bill will not alter the rights of EU nations that are protected, or eligible to be protected, by the relevant provisions in the Northern Ireland protocol. The Bill contains provisions that, when exercised appropriately, will ensure the continued implementation of our international obligations, including the Northern Ireland protocol.

    It is our preference to resolve the Northern Ireland protocol issue through talks. The Government are engaging in constructive dialogue with the EU to find solutions to these problems. I must put on record that officials have been working with officials in Northern Ireland for the last 18 months. We know how important and sensitive this issue is.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) rose—

    Ms Ghani

    I will just make a little progress before I take more interventions.

    I cannot stress enough the importance of achieving the deadline. The retained EU law was never intended to sit on the statute books indefinitely. On 31 January last year the Government announced plans to bring forward the Bill, which is the culmination of the Government’s work to untangle ourselves from decades of EU membership. It will permit the creation of a more agile, innovative and UK-specific regulatory approach, benefiting people and businesses across the UK.

    It is a priority of the Government that the United Kingdom will be the best place to start and grow a business. The Bill contains powers that will allow us to make good on that promise. It will allow outdated and often undemocratic retained EU law to be amended, repealed or replaced more quickly and easily than before. It will remove burdens on business and create a more agile and sustainable legislative framework to boost economic growth.

    Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)

    I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember being on the Back Benches and sitting in statutory instrument Committees in which we had no ability whatsoever to change the legislation going through, because it was driven by the European Union. This is about taking back control by giving democratic authority to this place. Furthermore, on things such as maternity leave, minimum wage, annual leave, product safety and international regulations we are already doing better than the EU minimum standards. This Government will promise to keep those standards and, in many cases, increase them.

    Ms Ghani

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a lot of misinformation about the environment. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has committed to maintain or enhance standards. He is right that we had very little say over positions taken in Brussels, but now, in the Bill, those decisions are taken by the devolved authorities. That will remain devolved and they will have a say, so why would they want to give away that power?

    Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)

    The Minister spoke of taking back control, but the harsh reality is that the Government are taking back control from the Scottish Parliament. Yesterday we heard about the UK Government enacting section 35 to strike out a Bill of the Scottish Parliament. The Scotland Act 2016 contains the Sewel convention, which requires the UK Government to obtain the consent of the Scottish Parliament when they are acting in devolved matters. The Scottish Government are not giving their consent. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Why should the Scottish Government not have the right to veto this Bill, which tramples over devolution and our laws in a way that we do not consent to?

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)

    Order. Could I gently say to the Minister that in order to facilitate Hansard and hon. Members seeking to hear, it would be helpful if she could address the microphone rather than the Back Benches?

    Ms Ghani

    My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.

    The question is, why would the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) not take the power that the Scottish Government will be given through this Bill when it comes to devolved matters, to look at the EU laws and see whether they want to maintain them or enhance them for their own people? Why would they want to reject the power that they have been offered through this Bill? We remain fully committed to the Sewel convention. It is an essential element of the devolution settlement. The UK Government continue to seek legislative consent for Bills that interact with devolution. The right hon. Member’s argument does not make any sense. My worry is that Scottish Government do not want the powers because then they will have to exercise them. I know it is a little bit of work, but it is worth doing.

    This Bill provides the opportunity to improve the competitiveness of the UK economy while maintaining high standards. It will ensure that the Government can more easily amend, revoke or replace retained EU law, so that the Government can create legislation that better suits the UK. This programme of reform must be done. The people of the UK did not vote for Brexit with the expectation that nearly a decade later, politicians in Westminster would continually rehash old and settled arguments, as those on the Opposition Benches so love to do. We must push on and seize the opportunities that Brexit provides. That will ensure that our economy is dynamic and agile and can support advances in technology and science.

    Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)

    On agility, the Minister will know that the majority of the thousands of rules that need to be changed are in the environmental area. Does she think it is a good idea that civil servants are completely distracted and focused on the changes to these rules when we have one in four people in food poverty, 63,000 people dying a year due to poor air quality, sewage pouring into our seas and crabs dying off the north-east coast? Would it not be better if the civil servants and the Government tackled those problems rather than going down a rabbit hole and inventing worse standards than the EU, such as trying to get to World Health Organisation air quality standards by 2040, which the EU is trying to get to by 2030?

    Ms Ghani

    I think many people coming into the debate today think that this is the start of something, but this process has been in place for more than 18 months, and DEFRA has committed to maintain or enhance standards. The constant misinformation given out over what is happening on the environment is simply incorrect. DEFRA has already taken decisive action to reform areas of retained EU law and it already has flagship legislation on our statute book, including the Environment Act 2021, the Fisheries Act 2020 and the Agriculture Act 2020, all on powers that the SNP wants to give back to Brussels. The Environment Act strengthens our environmental protections while respecting our international obligations. It is simply incorrect to suggest that the Government will be weakening any of those protections. The Environment Act has set new legally binding targets, including to halt and reverse nature’s decline. Those targets, with oversight from the Office for Environmental Protection, will ensure that any reform to retained EU law delivers positive environmental outcomes. DEFRA will also conduct proportionate analysis of the expected impacts, so it is absolutely incorrect to misrepresent this Bill.

    Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)

    The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge) talked about statutory instrument Committees. I think all of us have sat on statutory instrument Committees, where we know that it is a question of like it or lump it when it comes to what is being proposed. Under this Bill, Ministers will have powers over key issues that our constituents care about. The Minister talks about the dashboard and admits that it still needs to be updated. As a matter of good democratic practice, will she give us, here and now, today, the exact number of laws covered by this Bill, so Members of this House can at least have some sense of the task that they are voting for? If she cannot tell us how many laws are covered, it is definitely not clear to us how any of us can influence them.

    Ms Ghani

    The hon. Member was very astute in Committee, and we spent many hours together discussing this. The dashboard is public. It has had more than 100,000 views to date. I was on it only last night. It has thousands of laws on it, and it will be updated again this month. There is a process within each Department, which is why a unit has been established to work with each Department across Whitehall. Every EU law that is identified will be put on the dashboard. So it is public, it is accessible, and all the information is out there.

    I must just respond to another point that the hon. Member raised, once again, about scrutiny in this place, because it is being misrepresented—[Interruption.] Unfortunately, it is. The Bill will follow the usual channels for when laws are being either amended or revoked. The Leaders of the two Houses will meet and the business managers will take a decision. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords has already said that it is comfortable with the way the Bill will progress and the laws will be scrutinised, and the European Statutory Instruments Committee has said that it is comfortable with the way the laws will be scrutinised and assessed. So there is a process in place, as there was for a no-deal Brexit. The crunch is: if you do not like Brexit and if you did not like the way the Brexit vote that took place, you are not going to like any elements of this Bill.

    Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)

    Just before that intervention, the Minister was talking about the environment. Is it not the case that Members on this side of the House have delivered the Environment Act, that we are perfectly capable of making our own laws and delivering for the British people and that we do not need guidance from the European Union, unlike those on the Opposition Benches?

    Ms Ghani

    Absolutely. We on this side of the House have done a tremendous amount of work that did not require us to be directed by bureaucrats in Brussels. This gives me a great opportunity to point out all the fantastic work that we have achieved.

    First of all, I must just say again that we will be maintaining and enhancing environmental standards. I want to touch on a list of things that we have achieved, especially on animal welfare, which has been a huge priority for Government Members. We have had the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 and the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. Since 2010, we have had new regulations on minimum standards for meat and chickens, banned the use of conventional battery cages for laying hens, made CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses in England, made microchipping mandatory for dogs in 2015, modernised our licensing system for a range of activities such as dog breeding and pet sales, protected service animals via Finn’s law, banned the commercial third-party sale of puppies and kittens via Lucy’s law, passed the Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019 and led work to implement humane trapping standards. Our Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill will further the rights of animals outside the EU, including the banning of export of live animals for slaughter and fattening. It is remarkable how much we can achieve when we are left to our own devices.

    Caroline Lucas rose—

    Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) rose—

    Ms Ghani

    I will just make a little bit of progress.

    As I have said, the sunset clause is necessary and is the quickest and most effective way to pursue retained EU law reform. It is only right to set the sunset and the revocation of inherited EU laws as the default position. It ensures that we are proactively choosing to preserve EU laws only when they are in the best interests of the UK. It ensures that outdated and unneeded laws are quickly and easily repealed. It will also give the Government a clear timeline in which to finish the most important tasks. Some retained EU laws are legally inoperable, and removing them from the statute book easily is good democratic governance. Requiring the Government to undergo complex and unnecessary parliamentary processes to remove retained EU law that is no longer necessary or operable, and can more easily be removed, is not good governance.

    Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)

    Surely parliamentary sovereignty is giving Members of Parliament control, not the Executive or bureaucrats in Whitehall.

    Ms Ghani

    The reality is that Ministers take decisions all the time, and there is a process in place where laws are amended or updated if there is a significant policy change. The same policy process will be in place. If the hon. Member is not comfortable with Conservative Ministers taking those decisions or with the SI process that is already in place, fundamentally he is just not comfortable with the decisions we are taking because we are taking these rules from Europe and placing them here on our UK statute book. That is a different argument altogether.

    Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)

    I want to react to what I think I heard the Minister saying when she suggested that those of us who did not support Brexit in the referendum would not support this Bill. That is not the case. As someone who did not vote for Brexit but who absolutely recognises that democratic choice and respects the referendum, I do support the premise of the Bill. We need to look at the EU law, although there are elements of the Bill we could improve on to give some certainty, and I hope that I will be called to speak later.

    Ms Ghani

    I would not want to misrepresent my right hon. Friend’s position. The point I was making was that Opposition Members who have complained about the Bill have a particular position that has been long held because of the outcome of the vote that took place.

    We believe it is right that the public should know how much legislation there is derived from the EU, and know about the progress the Government are making. For that reason, we have published a public dashboard—perhaps colleagues would like to go on to the site for a moment—containing a list of UK Government retained EU law. The site will also document the Government’s progress on reforming retained EU law and will be updated regularly to reflect plans and actions taken. It will be updated again this month. I was slightly inaccurate earlier: there have in fact been 148,727 visitors to that site. It is not as if people are in the dark. There are many opportunities to be aware of what we are doing.

    Caroline Lucas rose—

    Ms Ghani

    I will give way to the hon. Lady because she has been so patient.

    Caroline Lucas

    I am grateful to the Minister for finally giving way. She is suggesting that those of us who oppose the Bill are opposing it for some kind of ideological reason. I draw her attention to the words of the chair of the Office for Environmental Protection, who herself said:

    “Worryingly, the Bill does not offer any safety net, there is no requirement to maintain existing levels of environmental protection”.

    Not only that, there is actually a requirement not to go on and make the legislation stronger. That is written into the Bill.

    On the issue of certainty, I do not know how the Minister can stand there and pretend that this is about certainty when businesses have no idea which laws will be in or out and when she does not know how many laws are on her dashboard.

    On democracy, when we were in the European Union we at least had Members of the European Parliament who had a say over these things. When the laws come back here, we have no say over them at all; it is all with Ministers. Is that what she means when she says this is supposed to be a good Bill that is full of opportunities from Brexit?

    Ms Ghani

    The hon. Lady has got the meme for her Facebook page. Unfortunately, she wholly misrepresents what the Bill is doing. Environmental standards will be maintained or enhanced. At the moment, the laws that come down from Brussels on the environment and land cover everything from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. This Bill is a great opportunity to maintain, to enhance and to review what more we can do to make things better for our environment across the UK. We already have flagship legislation in place: the Environment Act 2021, the Fisheries Act 2020 and the Agriculture Act 2020. The Office for Environmental Protection has been fully established to enforce those elevated environmental rules and standards. The water framework directive covers our water. Instead of misrepresenting what the Bill does, why not take the opportunity to ensure that we enhance provision for what we are not maintaining?

    Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)

    Listening to the Opposition, we might think that the EU is the land of milk and honey when it comes to the environment. This is the same EU that put fossil fuels and gas in last year’s green taxonomy. Getting out of the EU allows us to have our own taxonomies and to make far greener efforts than naming gas as a green technology, which it is not.

    Ms Ghani

    We can make sure that we have a better focus on renewables, and we can take the decisions that work best for our communities. Fundamentally, we are maintaining and enhancing. We must not forget that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been able to introduce substantial law on water, animals and land. I have covered the dashboard, and I assume colleagues will now be pouncing on it.

    Departments have been actively working on their retained EU law reform plans for well over 18 months to ensure that appropriate action is taken before the sunset date. Additional work to lift obsolete laws will inevitably be slow, but that work will continue. We cannot allow the reform of retained EU law to remain merely a possibility. The sunset provision guarantees that retained EU law will not become an ageing relic dragging down the UK. It incentivises the genuine review and reform of retained EU law in a way that works best for the UK. What reforms are desirable will differ from policy area to policy area.

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, said on Second Reading, the environment is one of the Government’s top priorities. We will ensure that environmental law works for the UK and improves our environmental outcomes. As I said, we will be maintaining and enhancing. The Bill does not change the Environment Act, and we remain committed to delivering our legally binding target to halt nature’s decline by 2030.

    Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)

    Many constituents have been in touch with me with their concerns about habitat protection, maternity leave protection and other issues. The National Archives says that 1,300 additional pieces of legislation are not necessarily in scope. Can the Minister give more clarity on how many pieces of legislation this Bill will cover?

    Ms Ghani

    We are working across Departments to cover laws that will either be assimilated, amended or revoked. We are finding that a number of those laws are obsolete, and the fact we are still identifying them is good. We are putting them on the dashboard as soon as we can, and we will update the dashboard again this month. It is right that we conduct this exercise to know where we are and to ensure that we refer to UK law where we assimilate, and that we amend it to improve the situation for our communities and businesses. If the laws are not operable in the UK, we can revoke them.

    The hon. Lady mentioned maternity rights, which is one of the unfortunate misinformation campaigns on this Bill. I struggle with the fact that colleagues are sharing misinformation, as people who may be vulnerable are made more vulnerable by such misinformation. The UK has one of the best workers’ rights records in the world, and our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU.

    Indeed, the UK provides far stronger protections for workers than are required by EU law. For example, UK workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks of annual leave compared with the EU requirement of four weeks—we are doing better here. We provide a year of maternity leave, with the option to convert it to shared parental leave. The EU requirement for maternity leave is just 14 weeks—we are doing better here. The right to flexible working for all employees was introduced in the UK in the early 2000s, whereas the EU agreed its rules only recently and offers the right only to parents and carers—we are doing better here. The UK introduced two weeks’ paid paternity leave back in 2003. Who can remember then? The EU legislated for this only recently—once again, we are doing better here. I ask Members please not to hold up Brussels as a bastion of virtue, as that is most definitely not the case.

    Stella Creasy

    Will the Minister give way?

    Ms Ghani

    I will make a little progress.

    Significant reform will be needed in other areas, which is why the powers in the Bill are necessary. The people of the UK expect and deserve positive regulatory reform to boost the economy. Via this Bill, we will deliver reform across more than 300 policy areas. We cannot be beholden to a body of law that grows more obsolete by the day just because some in this House see the EU as the fount of all wisdom.

    Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)

    My hon. Friend is setting out a very powerful case. On the one hand, she is making the case that in Britain we have many laws that are superior and offer greater benefits and protections to residents, and on the other hand, she is making the self-evident point that we should unshackle ourselves from laws that will become increasingly historical, some of which were assimilated into British statute without scrutiny.

    Will the devolved Administrations be able to preserve retained EU law where it relates to devolved areas of competence?

    Ms Ghani

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the law is already devolved, the devolved Administrations have the ability to assimilate, amend or revoke, which is why some of the interventions from Opposition Members are slightly absurd. Why would they not want the opportunity to have a review? If the devolved Administrations want to assimilate the law, they can. If they want to amend it, they can. If they wish to revoke it, they have that choice. Why would the devolved Administrations not want to embrace the powers this Bill will give them?

    Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)

    The Minister talks about the devolved Administrations hanging on to their powers. Will she ensure that the dashboard on retained EU law is updated to identify which legislation is reserved and which is devolved, as well as how legislation in Wales might be affected?

    Ms Ghani

    Yes. The hon. Gentleman may have missed the earlier part of my speech. Government officials have been working with devolved Administration officials for more than 18 months, and that work will continue. When we discover an EU law, we put it on the dashboard. Of course, there are conversations with officials in the devolved authorities, and it is important that we continue to work closely with them.

    I was going to say more about the UK’s tremendous work on the environment, because I saw some dreadful, inappropriate coverage in the press, including nonsense about marine habitats. I have just had some information from DEFRA about its fantastic work in Montreal on marine. We have done more work on environmental standards and status outside the EU, including in protected areas such Dogger Bank, to enhance protection by 2030. We are also integrating our ocean and coastal mapping.

    Unfortunately, colleagues who are uncomfortable with the Bill have also peddled misinformation about our water bodies and water standards. There is an assumption that the target is being moved, which is absolutely incorrect. Targets are not being moved. It is incorrect to say that the target for the good state of England’s water bodies has been changed—it is still 2027, as outlined in the water framework directive. Hopefully that will cancel out any other misinformation on this stuff being shared on social media sites.

    Reform will be needed in other significant areas, which is why the powers in the Bill are necessary. It has been suggested that the Bill will somehow be a bonfire of workers’ rights. We are proud of the UK’s excellent record on labour standards, and we have one of the best workers’ rights records in the world. Our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU. Indeed, the UK provides far stronger protections for workers than are required by EU law. I have already spoken about maternity rights, but we can also look at maternity cover, holiday pay and other rights for employees.

  • Alex Davies-Jones – 2023 Speech on Fertility Treatment (Transparency)

    Alex Davies-Jones – 2023 Speech on Fertility Treatment (Transparency)

    The speech made by Alex Davies-Jones, the Labour MP for Pontypridd, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require providers of in vitro fertilisation to publish information annually about the number of NHS-funded IVF cycles they carry out and about their provision of certain additional treatments in connection with in vitro fertilisation; to require such providers to publish a report about their provision of NHS-funded IVF treatment in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.

    It is an honour to speak on this Bill about a subject that colleagues will know is very close to my heart. I thank the Bill’s sponsors, many of whom are here today, for their support. Indeed, I am extremely grateful to have support from colleagues across the House who have recognised that there are currently gaps in IVF policy more widely.

    Ask anyone who has experience of IVF, whether personally or from watching loved ones go through the process, and they will tell you that IVF is one of the most emotionally and mentally challenging processes that someone can ever undertake. My own IVF journey began in 2018, and I have been very open about the fact that I knew from the start that my road to pregnancy would be difficult. While I am certainly one of the very lucky ones—after only one round of IVF, I was blessed with my beautiful son Sullivan—I still had many eye-opening experiences during my fertility journey that have led me to this point today.

    Let us be clear: the current state of the IVF offering across the UK is far below what would-be parents deserve. I will be honest with the Minister: none of the devolved nations, or England, is currently getting it right.

    It was those first-hand experiences that brought me to this issue and prompted me to introduce the Bill. Since I was elected three years ago, I have campaigned extensively to “right”’ the “wrongs” that I have experienced at first hand as an IVF patient. I passionately believe that many of the problems that currently affect patients seeking IVF can be addressed by an improvement in the transparency requirements to which clinics must adhere.

    In my view, there are two areas in which inadequate transparency levels are most pressing. First, there is an unacceptable lack of transparency in respect of the number of NHS-funded cycles that IVF clinics are offering. We need to be able to hold the clinics to account for their failures to adhere to guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence which clearly state that NHS England should offer three full cycles of IVF to all women under 40 if they have been trying unsuccessfully to have a child for more than two years. The reality is that across the UK fewer than half of all IVF cycles for under-35s were funded by the NHS, and in England it is even worse: just 36% of IVF cycles are funded by the NHS. The result is a patchwork of different IVF services across the country, with unacceptable regional disparities. Not only will compelling clinics to publish the extent to which they are abiding by NICE guidelines empower patients to make informed choices about paying for treatment, but we will be holding clinics to account over where they fall short. Because of these regional disparities, the vast majority of clinically eligible patients ultimately face funding their own treatment. Such a high proportion is plainly and simply against NICE guidelines. Some couples are having to pay up to £15,000 for a single IVF cycle, and that cannot be right.

    The second transparency issue that the Bill seeks to address relates to the controversial “add-on” treatments that IVF clinics market to their patients, often without sufficient information about their efficacy. Different clinics call these products by a wide variety of names. Some refer to them as “supplementary” treatments or “adjuvant” treatments, or, most ambiguously of all, simply “embryology treatments”. These add-ons often add thousands of pounds’ worth of extra “treatment” to the overall cost of IVF, and the science behind them is often murky, or at least unclear.

    The mis-selling of IVF add-ons is an issue of particular importance to me. I know at first hand that for many would-be parents seeking IVF treatment, especially those on low incomes and those who have endured several rounds of IVF already, being offered these additional products can often mean making heart-wrenching decisions. When you feel that you would do anything just to increase your chances of successfully having a baby, perhaps even by just 1%, shelling out thousands of pounds for procedures including “endometrial scratching”, “preimplantation genetic testing” or perhaps an “intrauterine culture” seems a reasonable—perhaps even routine—step to take, but the reality is that none of those add-ons has a solid evidence base to support its effectiveness, no matter how scientific they sound. We know that they lack solid clinical evidence because of the work of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and its “traffic-light” system for rating add-ons.

    Of course that rating system is useful to many thousands of IVF patients and I commend the HFEA for its work, especially its calls for clinics to be more open about the add-ons they provide, but I strongly believe that we need to do more, which is why the Bill’s second primary purpose is to mandate that clinics publish data on the number of add-on treatments that they sell. We cannot allow a situation in which desperate would-be parents are not properly informed about the efficacy of eye-wateringly expensive add-on treatments, and are exploited and seen as cash cows by clinics that just want to make money. As with the regional disparities issue that I mentioned earlier, by requiring the publication of data on add-on services we can hold clinics to account far more easily, and use that data as a key tool to improve the way in which IVF services are offered across the country.

    Put together, the transparency issues that plague our IVF services contribute to what is commonly known as the “postcode lottery” of IVF. Up and down the country, IVF clinics are offering vastly different levels of NHS-backed IVF, often in breach of NICE guidelines, and all with differing approaches to selling add-ons. The NHS’s new integrated care systems, introduced by the Government’s Health and Care Act 2022, were set up specifically to tackle inequalities in access and health outcomes, including IVF outcomes, but if the issues of transparency are not addressed, those inequalities will simply continue to persist. That is why I believe that the Bill is a vital step in ensuring that ICSs fulfil their obligations.

    This Bill is a starting point. With the useful data that it will provide, we will have the tools to address the issues that I have raised today. In no way is it trying to fix all the problems that prospective IVF parents currently face. Indeed, I pay tribute to colleagues on both sides of the House who have campaigned tirelessly on other important issues relating to fertility access. I pay particular tribute to one of my co-sponsors, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), for her work on her own Private Member’s Bill requiring employers to provide paid fertility leave.

    We have much more to do if we are to improve the way in which our country provides IVF, and improving our cultural attitudes to it, including attitudes in the workplace, is no exception. I believe that the Bill is an important starting point. From transparency will come accountability, and with accountability we can finally address the IVF postcode lottery once and for all.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Ordered,

    That Alex Davies-Jones, Nickie Aiken, Tonia Antoniazzi, Steve Brine, Stella Creasy, Dame Caroline Dinenage, Christine Jardine, Dame Diana Johnson, Justin Madders, Siobhain McDonagh, Charlotte Nichols and Caroline Nokes present the Bill.

    Alex Davies-Jones accordingly presented the Bill.

  • Ben Bradshaw – 2023 Statement on Church of England’s Ban on Same-Sex Couples

    Ben Bradshaw – 2023 Statement on Church of England’s Ban on Same-Sex Couples

    The statement made by Ben Bradshaw, the Labour MP for Exeter, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may have heard that today the Church of England bishops have recommended no substantial change to the Church’s current ban on same-sex couples being married in church in England, although of course it is already possible in Scotland and will soon be possible in Wales. Many Members across the House—the majority, I would judge—believe that by continuing to exclude lesbian and gay people from its full rites, the Church is no longer compatible with its established status, which confers the duty to serve the whole nation. Has the Second Church Estates Commissioner indicated to you whether he will come to this House and make a statement on this very serious state of affairs and its potential constitutional consequences?

    Mr Speaker

    The answer is no—nobody has come to speak to me—but the Second Church Estates Commissioner is here with us and may wish to answer the right hon. Gentleman.

    The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)

    Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I hear exactly what the right hon. Gentleman says. He will know that I will be answering questions in this House next Thursday, and I will willingly take questions on that. I should also point out that the Church of England has not yet made a formal, full statement on the matter. That will happen on Friday; I myself am only being fully briefed on it tomorrow. I am available to this House next Thursday and at any time at your discretion, Mr Speaker.

    Mr Speaker

    Unless the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) can get a question, he may not be able to get in as easily, so it may be appropriate for the Second Church Estates Commissioner to come forward with a statement rather than waiting for Church Commissioners’ questions. It would be helpful to have that statement on Monday; I would encourage that, because it is a topic that the House will wish to know about. I will leave that with the Second Church Estates Commissioner.

  • Lloyd Russell-Moyle – 2023 Personal Statement on Comments Made to Miriam Cates

    Lloyd Russell-Moyle – 2023 Personal Statement on Comments Made to Miriam Cates

    The personal statement made by Lloyd Russell-Moyle, the Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wanted to notify the House at the earliest opportunity that I have written to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) to acknowledge that the tone of my remarks in the Chamber yesterday was a mistake. I stand by the words that I said, and I profoundly disagree with the comments that the hon. Member made, but our job as MPs is to channel passion and anger into considered debate to win our arguments—in this case, on the trans community and devolution. I recognise that I failed to control that passion during what was an emotional debate. I should have expressed my deep disagreement on what I believe is an abhorrent view in a more appropriate way. I want to particularly apologise to Madam Deputy Speaker, who had to preside over the debate.

    Mr Speaker

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice that he wished to come and make that point of order. It allows me to take this opportunity to remind hon. Members of the importance of good temper and moderation in contributions from all sides and all Members. We will disagree, but how we express that disagreement is important. Please, let us have moderate and temperate language going forward.

  • Alan Brown – 2023 Speech on Electric Vehicle Battery Production

    Alan Brown – 2023 Speech on Electric Vehicle Battery Production

    The speech made by Alan Brown, the SNP MP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

    I express sympathy with all those affected by the job losses, but this is an abject failure of the mythical levelling-up agenda. Unfortunately, that should not come as a surprise. It has always irritated me that the Tories claim that they are the ones to level up communities—the very communities that they devastated in the first place.

    Just over a year ago, the former, former Prime Minister was boasting about the construction of Britishvolt’s gigafactory. He said that it would create 3,000 direct jobs and 5,000 supply-chain jobs, and support the production of 300,000 batteries for car production. That meant putting our faith in a company with no pedigree, no assets except a field and no products to deliver a £4 billion factory—and that with one owner with a conviction for fraud. We know that the Government do not care about paying taxes, but that is akin to awarding a ferry contract to a company with no ferries. When did the Government do due diligence? When did they realise that there was a problem and what actions did they take? When will we see a coherent strategy for battery production, EV manufacturing, the roll-out of charging points across the UK and, importantly, hydrogen vehicle manufacturing and green hydrogen production?

    Graham Stuart

    I share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for the opportunities that come from net zero. That is why we are moving so hard on nuclear, which of course anybody who is not a prisoner of some ideological opposition and is genuinely committed to green energy would support. We are supporting that across the piece. I do not think that Conservative Members will take lessons on industrial intervention from Scottish nationalists after their shipbuilding enterprises in the north.

  • Grant Shapps – 2023 Speech at the Davos World Economic Forum Annual Meeting

    Grant Shapps – 2023 Speech at the Davos World Economic Forum Annual Meeting

    The speech made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in Davos, Switzerland on 19 January 2023.

    Introduction / 50 years of Davos

    Good afternoon everyone.

    It is 52 years since Professor Klaus Schwab founded the World Economic Forum……

    And chose Davos as the location for its annual meetings…… a place described as the perfect sanctuary to escape the outside world.

    And there was no shortage of problems for those first delegates to escape in the early ‘70s…..

    A looming oil crisis.

    Cold War tension with Russia.

    Industrial unrest.

    And soaring inflation…..

    To name just a few….

    Looking back over half a century later, it doesn’t take too much imagination to see parallels with today’s world.

    Countries experiencing a wave of distinctly old-fashioned economic shocks…..

    From an energy crisis, and war in Ukraine…… to strikes and the rising cost of living……

    All things we hoped had disappeared along with bell bottomed jeans in the 1970s….. but have regrettably flared up again.

    However, unlike those first visitors to Davos five decades ago……

    We are not here this week to escape the problems of the outside world.

    We’re here – Government and industry – to fix them.

    Prime Minister / Growth

    We’ve now got a government which is making the right decisions for Britain, and for our economy.

    A fortnight ago, in his New Year speech……

    As well as pledging to halve inflation this year, and make sure national debt is falling……

    The Prime Minister was unequivocal in his commitment to ‘growth’.

    Now for this Government, ‘growth’ isn’t a goal…. a target….. or a destination.

    It’s the cornerstone of everything we are doing.

    And that’s because it’s the single biggest enabler of everything we want to deliver.

    How do we fix the NHS? Growth.

    How do we tackle the cost of living? Growth.

    How do we level up our country and make it fairer for all? Growth.

    Nothing will deflect us from this most urgent of priorities.

    Innovation

    But how do we achieve it?

    If we analyse Britain’s economic growth since the first Davos five decades ago…….

    Roughly half of our productivity increase has come from innovation.

    Half of the progress we’ve made as a country, is thanks to entrepreneurs….. disruptors….. risk takers….. and innovators…..

    People and businesses daring to think differently.

    And the exciting thing is, the change we’ve seen over the past 50 years will pale in comparison when compared with the next 50.

    We are truly on the cusp of a new Industrial Revolution.

    A revolution in how we do business.

    How we communicate.

    How we travel.

    How we feed a growing global population.

    How we power our homes and industries……

    A revolution in how we live our lives.

    And we have a choice.

    Either we sit back as a nation, waiting for change to happen…… and lose our position as one of the world’s leading economies……

    Or we propel ourselves forward……

    Using the unique combination of assets and talents which Britain possesses to shape the future.

    And my overwhelming focus as Business Secretary will be the latter path……

    To help businesses grasp the opportunities that lay ahead.

    To inspire and support the entrepreneurs of tomorrow.

    So Britain can create its own success.

    And the key challenge is this:

    We have never lacked great inventors, clever ideas, or promising start-ups.

    Last year, the UK was ranked among the five most innovative nations on earth by the World Intellectual Property Office……

    Ahead of South Korea, Germany, China and Singapore.

    So that’s not our issue.

    However, we must do better is convert start-ups to scale-ups.

    So I want to inspire ‘Scale-up Britain’.

    Building businesses that don’t just develop in the UK…..

    But stay to grow and mature into world-leaders.

    And that’s what I’d like to talk to you about today.

    Raising ambitions

    The first step to a ‘Scale-up’ nation is to ‘scale-up’ our ambitions.

    I want to make Britain the most dynamic place in the world to launch, grow and do business.

    A high-skills, high-wage economy, with a business-friendly culture, where creative enterprise is encouraged and rewarded.

    At difficult times like this, our instinct could be to turn inwards, think smaller, hedge our bets, and protect domestic industry by closing ourselves off.

    But that’s precisely the opposite of what’s needed right now,

    Rather, we must open up more.

    We must think bigger, take strategic risks.

    We must target high-growth sectors with long-term potential.

    We must form new global partnerships….. inviting the world to come and invest in Britain.

    And we must build a business ecosystem that harnesses our incredible potential to be a leader in the fourth Industrial Revolution, just as we were in the first.

    Tech

    We know that emerging technology is a market we want to lead.

    And we already have the largest tech sector in Europe….. worth over $1 trillion in 2021……

    Making us only the third country in the world to ever reach this historic landmark.

    So we’re well placed, but how do we scale-up innovators into global leaders?

    We must face facts.

    We have failed so far to develop any home-grown tech giants that can compete with the biggest global players.

    Granted…… that blessed with the world’s finest universities and most enquiring minds, we have produced more billion-dollar unicorn start-ups than France, Germany and the Netherlands put together…..

    But why do so many companies move abroad after being nurtured in the UK?

    And why doesn’t Britain produce a Google, Amazon or Apple?

    After all, it was a Brit who invented the World Wide Web….

    I think we can learn a lot from Silicon Valley’s ambition……

    And its record creating global tech brands……

    But we can also learn from the mistakes it has made.

    Its unicorns have sometimes prioritised shareholder value above all else.

    Its culture sometimes falls short of the standards we expect from modern employers.

    And whilst it has made a few people unimaginably rich, the wealth isn’t shared by everyone…… with homelessness in nearby San Francisco a visible sign of this inequality.

    So what I want to create is a Silicon Valley with a British edge.

    A scale-up Britain with global ambitions to lead the tech market and improve the world.

    UK strengths

    So how do we get there?

    Well, as Business Secretary, I recognise we have an extraordinary mix of assets in this country to help businesses on this mission.

    We host 4 of the world’s top 10 universities .

    We have a research-friendly regulatory environment now capable of greater speed and flexibility, in part due to Brexit.

    The international language of business is our mother tongue.

    We’ve announced the largest R&D budget in our history to become a science superpower.

    And the ONS recently revealed that the UK is investing close to 3% of GDP in research and development – significantly higher than previously thought.

    When it comes to scale-up finance, we are home to one of the world’s two biggest financial centres.

    We’re releasing £100 billion more through the Solvency II reforms that will be used for investment.

    We are number two in the world for business start-ups.

    And we are number one in Europe for venture capital investment.

    Put simply: no-one else has such a unique blend of advantages.

    But we have to bring them together to become more than the sum of those parts, to truly harness all our powers – if we’re to scale-up Britain and achieve our potential.

    Brexit

    Now, I know that some thought the UK’s vote to leave the European Union was a signal of global retreat.

    And I won’t deny that Brexit has brought significant challenges.

    I personally voted remain, not through any love of the European Union, but largely because of the huge hassle of leaving.

    But here’s the thing……. I was a minister both before and after Brexit.

    And now we’ve gone through the process of leaving the EU, I can see how we reap the benefits……

    With new trade deals, and new regulatory freedoms.

    For example, we got back powers that are already attracting new investment to Britain.

    As PricewaterhouseCoopers’ annual survey found this week, the UK is now a top 3 global investment market.

    We’re removing years of burdensome EU regulations in favour of a more agile, forward-looking approach.

    Just recently, for example, I visited Teesside to see the site for a new lithium refinery built by a company called Green Lithium.

    The plant will supply battery grade materials for use in gigafactories for electric vehicles, as well as renewable energy and consumer technology.

    This is not just levelling-up in action….. helped by Government funding…..

    It’s Europe’s first large scale lithium refinery….. securing critical minerals at a volatile time for global markets and supply chains.

    It will provide 8% of Europe’s refined lithium……mainly for cars…..and was made possible by Brexit freedoms….. because we could change how the mineral is classified and that nimble work unlocked investment.

    By being more agile, we can adapt to changing circumstances.

    And here’s another productivity example…..

    When I was Transport Secretary, we faced a global shortage of lorry drivers.

    You probably remember the tanker driver shortages which led to petrol queues in 2021.

    Well, I announced a large package of measures to help secure fuel deliveries to petrol stations…… many of which again, were helped by Brexit freedoms.

    For example, I was able to change the law to streamline driving tests …… something I could not have done if we’d still been a member of the European Union.

    And of course, we showed how agile regulation can deliver fast, effective results when Britain led the world in approving COVID vaccines, both delivering the jabs and coming out of lockdown first.

    Leadership

    All these benefits give us incredible scope for the future.

    Not just to compete. But to drive the tech revolution ourselves.

    The market is changing, and there’s a clear space for leadership.

    But we are.

    A British version of Silicon Valley specialising in digital technologies and deep tech .

    We are pioneering so many breakthrough technologies…… from clean and secure energy to life sciences and transport.

    We are investing in our world class Catapult Network to explore how technologies can be further applied to industry.

    And through initiatives like the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum, we will continue setting the pace.

    We can lead a new wave of digitalisation too….. by developing the Metaverse, Digital Twins and new AI enabled robotic systems .

    This wave will be driven by open ecosystems of start-ups and scale-ups, with major players collaborating across borders…..

    And like-minded countries developing world-leading standards.

    The UK will play a key role in this – for example through the OECD’s recently-announced Global Technology Forum.

    We will work with partners to become the global hub for a responsible cyber-physical future.

    Our futures will be defined by not just one tech, but many.

    Artificial intelligence….. advanced communication networks….. robotics….. augmented reality and immersive technologies….. quantum and blockchain…… all potentially game-changers.

    And the UK has strengths in not just one of these technologies – but all of them.

    The potential they offer together is greater than the sum of their parts……

    With the power to transform whole industries around the world.

    Summary

    So – to recap – we have a unique opportunity here……

    Unprecedented in our lifetimes……

    To re-equip and re-boot British industry….. for a rapidly changing world.

    We have a government committed to growth.

    We have expertise in a wide mix of cutting edge technologies.

    We have the right environment to nurture business.

    We have already launched more than four and a half thousand startups and scaleups working in advanced digital technologies in the UK.

    So, with the largest tech sector in Europe, we’re already well on the way to becoming a British Silicon Valley.

    Scale-up Summit

    But to help us raise our game, we need to listen to a wider variety of entrepreneurs currently driving change.

    So I will launch a Scale-up Summit to bring together key frontier tech, development and finance figures who have accelerated tech businesses from start-ups to scale-ups……

    Who have worked around the world, from California to Tallinn…..

    And who can help us replicate their success in the UK, from Catford to Teeside.

    In particular, we want to hear from those who have achieved high growth, unicorn status…… and experienced multiple exits.

    We will use the Summit to build networks and share expertise.

    And establish how best we can use our skills and strengths to spark the growth of tomorrow.

    Conclusion

    So, despite the prevailing economic news right now……

    The difficult challenges that almost every government and business is grappling with……

    This is no time to sit back and escape the problems of the outside world, as those first Davos visitors did half a century ago…..

    It’s time to confront them.

    And the best way to do that is to get our economy growing.

    We in government know that this country can’t thrive unless its businesses are fit and flourishing too.

    That’s why the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and I are working flat out to not only recover from the toughest period in recent economic history…… but also to prepare for the next 50 years of British innovation…..

    Using the unique assets Britain has at its disposal……

    Building resilient businesses with global reach…..

    And leading in emerging markets that will deliver in the long-term.

    That’s how we’ll scale-up our ambitions.

    And that’s how we will shape the future.

    Thank you.

  • Jonathan Reynolds – 2023 Speech on Electric Vehicle Battery Production

    Jonathan Reynolds – 2023 Speech on Electric Vehicle Battery Production

    The speech made by Jonathan Reynolds, the Labour MP for Stalybridge and Hyde, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

    When the Britishvolt site was first announced in 2019, with the promise to deliver the UK’s second ever gigafactory and create 8,000 jobs in Northumberland, it was lauded by the Government as their flagship example of levelling up: the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), then Business Secretary, said that Britishvolt is

    “exactly what levelling up looks like”,

    and Government Ministers fell all over themselves to take the credit, so now they must also accept accountability for its failure, because, much like their levelling up strategy, all we have been left with is an empty space instead of what was promised.

    The collapse of Britishvolt into administration is in no uncertain terms a disaster for the UK car industry, but what is even more worrying is that this is a symptom of a much wider failure. The automotive manufacturing sector currently employs over 182,000 people, and if we are to continue to make cars in this country we must make electric batteries in the UK. The Faraday Institution says we need 10 factories by 2040 to sustain our automotive sector, so even if Britishvolt was going ahead we would still be nowhere near where we need to be. These factories are being built in competitor countries, and that is because they have Governments with the vision and commitment to be the partner that private firms need to turn these factories from plans on paper into a reality. Surely the Government must accept that we need an industrial strategy.

    Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s plans to urgently increase UK battery-making capability? Can he tell us when the Government first had concerns about Britishvolt’s ability to deliver the factory, and why did these concerns not come to light when the Department conducted its extensive due diligence investigations into Britishvolt’s plans? What conversations has he had with other companies to secure the site and ensure the factory is built in Blyth? And will he now commit to Labour’s plans to build eight new gigafactories across the UK and expand the roll-out of charging points to support electric vehicle manufacturing?

    Wherever we look the Conservatives are failing this country, whether in public services or our iconic industries. Unless this Government wake up to the scale of the transition required, we will not only risk many of the good jobs that so many of our communities rely upon, but we will miss out on one of the greatest economic opportunities this country has ever had.

    Graham Stuart

    The hon. Gentleman is right about one thing: there is a tremendous opportunity. That is why we have the automotive transformation fund. That is why we did thorough due diligence on Britishvolt. It is because we set conditions around milestones that it had to meet that not a penny of that fund was dispensed to Britishvolt. However, I make no apology for supporting companies that are going to be part of that opportunity. The idea from the Labour party is that, if it were in power, it would build these factories. That is not how the economy works. That is why, in 2010, after 13 years of Labour Government, we saw youth unemployment up by more than 40%. That is the truth. We saw communities such as Blyth left behind and ignored. We saw an economic strategy that did not work for our young people and did not contribute to net zero in the way that it should. On the underpinning energy system, a bit more than 7% of our electricity came from renewables when Labour left power. Now it is more than 40%.

    The net zero strategy announced £350 million for the automotive transformation fund. That was in addition to the £500 million announced as part of the 10-point plan. That is why we are seeing investment. That is why we have nearly full employment. That is why we have factories and manufacturing going ahead in a way that would never happen under Labour.

  • Graham Stuart – 2023 Statement on Electric Vehicle Battery Production

    Graham Stuart – 2023 Statement on Electric Vehicle Battery Production

    The statement made by Graham Stuart, the Minister for Energy and Climate, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

    Britishvolt entering into administration is a regrettable situation, and our thoughts are with the company’s employees and their families at this time. The Government are entirely committed to the future of the automotive industry and promoting EV capability. As part of our efforts to see British companies succeed in the industry, we offered significant support to Britishvolt through the automotive transformation fund on the condition that key milestones, including private sector investment commitments, were met. Unfortunately, the company was unable to meet these conditions and as a result no ATF funds were paid out. Throughout the process, we have always remained hopeful that Britishvolt would find a suitable investor and we are disappointed that this has not been possible. We want to ensure the best outcome for the site, and we will work closely with the local authority and potential investors to achieve this.

    The automotive industry is a vital part of the UK economy, and it is integral to delivering on levelling up, net zero and advancing global Britain. We will continue to take steps to champion the UK as the best location in the world for automotive manufacturing as we transition to electric and zero-emission vehicles.

    Despite what the party opposite may claim, we are not giving up on the automotive industry: on the contrary, our ambition to scale up the electric vehicle industry on our shores is greater than ever. We are leveraging investment from industry by providing Government support for new plants and upgrades to ensure that the UK automotive industry thrives into the future. Companies continue to show confidence in the UK, announcing major investments across the country including: £1 billion from Nissan and Envision to create an EV manufacturing hub in Sunderland; £100 million from Stellantis for its site in Ellesmere Port; and £380 million from Ford to make Halewood its first EV components site in Europe. And we will continue to work through our automotive transformation fund to build a globally competitive electric vehicle supply chain in the UK, boosting home-grown EV battery production, levelling up and advancing towards a greener future.

  • Keir Starmer – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Ambulance Waiting Times

    Keir Starmer – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Ambulance Waiting Times

    The parliamentary question asked by Sir Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

    Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)

    I join the Prime Minister in his comments about the dreadful case of David Carrick.

    It is three minutes past 12. If somebody phones 999 now because they have chest pains and fear it might be a heart attack, when would the Prime Minister expect an ambulance to arrive?

    The Prime Minister

    It is absolutely right that people can rely on the emergency services when they need them, and that is why we are rapidly implementing measures to improve the delivery of ambulance times and, indeed, urgent and emergency care. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cares about ensuring patients get access to life-saving emergency care when they need it, why will he not support our minimum safety legislation?

    Keir Starmer

    The Prime Minister can deflect all he likes but, for a person suffering chest pains, the clock starts ticking straightaway—every minute counts. That is why the Government say an ambulance should be there in 18 minutes. In this case, that would be about 20 minutes past 12. I know he does not want to answer the question I asked him, so I will ask him again. When will that ambulance arrive?

    The Prime Minister

    Because of the extra funding we are putting in to relieve pressure in urgent and emergency care departments, and the investment we are putting into ambulance call handling, we will improve ambulance times as we are recovering from the pandemic and indeed the pressures of this winter. But I say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman again, because he makes my case for me: he describes the life-saving care that people desperately need, so why, when they have this in other countries—France, Spain, Italy and others—is he depriving people here of that care?

    Keir Starmer

    The Prime Minister obviously does not know or does not care. I will tell him: if our heart attack victim had called for an ambulance in Peterborough at 12.03 pm, it would not arrive until 2.10 pm. These are our constituents waiting for ambulances I am talking about. If this had happened in Northampton, the ambulance would not arrive until—[Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. Mr Bristow, I hope you want to see the rest of the questions out. I want you to be here, but you are going to have to behave better.

    Keir Starmer

    I am talking about our constituents. If they were in Northampton, the ambulance would not arrive until 2.20 pm. If they were in Plymouth, it would not arrive until 2.40 pm. That is why someone who fears a heart attack is waiting more than two and half hours for an ambulance. That is not the worst-case scenario; it is just the average wait. So for one week, will the Prime Minister stop blaming others, take some responsibility and just admit that under his watch the NHS is in crisis, isn’t it?

    The Prime Minister

    I notice that the one place the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention was Wales, where we know that ambulance times are even worse than they are in England. Let me set out the reason that is the case, because this is not about politics; this is about the fact that the NHS in Scotland, in Wales, in England is dealing with unprecedented challenges, recovering from covid and dealing with a very virulent and early flu season, and everyone is doing their best to bring those wait times down. But again, I ask him: if he believes so much in improving ambulance wait times, why will he not support our minimum safety legislation?

    Keir Starmer

    The Prime Minister will not answer any questions and he will not take any responsibility. By 1 pm, our heart attack victim is in a bad way, sweaty, dizzy and with their chest tightening. [Interruption.] I am talking about a heart attack and Conservative Members are shouting—this is your constituent. By that time, they should be getting treatment. But an hour after they have called 999 they are still lying there, waiting, listening to the clock tick. How does he think they feel, knowing that an ambulance could be still hours away?

    The Prime Minister

    The specific and practical things we are doing to improve ambulance times are clear: we are investing more in urgent and emergency care to create more bed capacity; we are ensuring that the flow of patients through emergency care is faster than it ever has been; we are discharging people at a record rate out of hospitals, to ease the constraints that they are facing; and we are reducing the call-out rates by moving people out of ambulance stacks, with them being dealt with in the community. Those are all very practical steps that will make a difference in the short term. But I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman this again and again, although we know why; the reason he is not putting patients first when it comes to ambulance waiting times is because he is simply in the pockets of his union paymasters.

    Keir Starmer

    This is not hypothetical; this is real life. Stephanie from Plymouth was battling cancer when she collapsed at home. Her mum rang 999, desperate for help. Stephanie only lived a couple of miles from the hospital, but they could not prioritise her. She was 26 when she died, waiting for that ambulance—a young woman whose life was ended far too soon. As a dad, I cannot even fathom that pain. So on behalf of Stephanie and her family, will the Prime Minister stop the excuses, stop shifting the blame, stop the political games and simply tell us: when will he sort out these delays and get back to the 18-minute wait?

    The Prime Minister

    Of course Stephanie’s case is a tragedy. Of course, people are working as hard as they can to ensure that people get the care that they need. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about political games. He is a living example of someone playing political games when it comes to people’s healthcare. I have already mentioned what has been going on in Wales. Is he confident that, in the Labour-run Welsh NHS, nobody is suffering right now? Of course they are, because the NHS everywhere is under pressure. What we should be doing is supporting those doctors and nurses to make the changes that we are doing to bring care to those people. I will ask him this: if he is so concerned about making sure that the Stephanies of the future get the care that they need, why is he denying those families the guarantee of emergency life-saving care?

    Keir Starmer

    So, that is the Prime Minister’s answer to Stephanie’s family—deflect, blame others, never take responsibility. Just like last week, he will not say when he will deliver the basic minimum service levels that people need.

    Over the 40 minutes or so that these sessions tend to last, 700 people will call an ambulance; two will be reporting a heart attack, four a stroke. Instead of the rapid help they need, many will wait and wait and wait. If the Prime Minister will not answer any questions, will he at least apologise for the lethal chaos under his watch?

    The Prime Minister

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about the minimum safety levels. We will deliver them as soon as we can pass them. Why will he not vote for them? We are delivering on the people’s priorities. As we have seen this week, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will just say anything if the politics suits him; it is as simple as that. He will break promises left, right and centre. He promised to nationalise public services. He promised to have a second referendum. He promised to defend the mass migration of the EU, and now we are apparently led to believe—[Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I expect those on the Front Bench to keep a little quiet. If they do not, there is somewhere else where they can shout and make their noise.

    The Prime Minister

    If we are to deliver for the British people, people need to have strong convictions. When it comes to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he is not just for the free movement of people; he also has the free movement of principles.

  • Michael Fabricant – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Investment from England Into Wales

    Michael Fabricant – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Investment from England Into Wales

    The parliamentary question asked by Michael Fabricant, the Conservative MP for Lichfield, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

    Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)

    What discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on investment from England into Wales; and if he will make a statement.

    The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)

    I have regular discussions with the Welsh Government on increasing investment in Wales and supporting the Welsh economy. Our plans for at least one Welsh freeport alongside our investment in infrastructure will act as a catalyst for further investment from the UK and beyond.

    Michael Fabricant

    A number of Welsh nationalists—not all but some—used the opportunity of covid and the closure of the Welsh border to incite anti-English feeling. Now we hear that Plaid Cymru, working with Labour, will introduce a hotel tax and other taxes. What does my right hon. Friend think that will do for English investment in Wales?

    David T. C. Davies

    I want to see people from England, and from all over the world, visiting Wales, and I am sure that all who do will appreciate the natural beauty and all that Wales has to offer to the tourism industry. I was disappointed that some people appeared to be indulging in anti-English rhetoric during the covid crisis. I hope all Members of this House would condemn such behaviour. I want to do more to encourage tourism, which is why I regret the fact that the Welsh Labour Government are bringing in a tourism tax. A tax on tourism is an attack on the tourist industry.

    Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)

    On the subject of investment between England and Wales, progress on speeding up the Wrexham to Bidston line is about as slow as the trains on the Wrexham to Bidston line. What has the Secretary of State personally done to improve rail connections between north Wales and Liverpool?

    David T. C. Davies

    I am sure I speak for the whole Government in saying that we are completely committed to better rail connections across the United Kingdom. I am well aware of the line between Wrexham and Bidston. I am also aware that it went through a business case procedure that was not completely positive. I can assure the hon. Lady that a number of projects in the rail network enhancements pipeline will be discussed shortly by the Department for Transport.