What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I know that my hon. Friend has consistently raised those points, and I am grateful to him for doing so. In the interests of time and not causing Madam Deputy Speaker further ire, let me say that given the points he has raised and his interest in the matter, we will bring him into the Department and give him a briefing on the work we are doing.
I gently say to the hon. Lady that under the previous Government, Albion and Bulwark were tied up, never to go to sea again. She will have heard the point I made earlier about the deal with the Netherlands, and I hope she will welcome that.
The hon. Gentleman’s constituency has very long-standing defence interests, and of course we will want to work closely with him in that regard. I think he will acknowledge that there was £1 billion of investment in new medium helicopters and other capabilities, but given his interest as the local MP, I would be very happy to discuss it with him further.
I can confirm that. Let me also take the opportunity to say how much we value the working relationship with BAE. It is a great company employing thousands of workers around the country, and we will want to work very closely with it on the back of this plan.
I always listen very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. He has made a number of entirely reasonable points based on constituency interest. Rather than running through all of them now, I am very happy to get back to him with a more detailed response.
I understand that the Dorset Innovation Park is excellent. I can confirm that as a consequence of the investment that this Government are making through the defence investment plan, there will be a whole range of opportunities for the kind of businesses that my hon. Friend represents in her constituency and for businesses right around the country. As I say, I am hugely proud that we will be generating 60,000 jobs and creating economic growth in every corner of the country, including in Dorset.
Diego Garcia is important for our national defence, but the assumptions I have had to make are to ensure that we have the right capabilities at the right time, given the nature of the world we operate in. I do not think anybody disputes that the world is a very difficult, complex and dangerous place. It is the job of defence and of the UK Government to ensure that we have the right resource and capabilities. That is why Iusb have been working hard to secure more resource and have sharpened our list of capabilities. That is also why I have been working with Treasury colleagues to ensure that defence will be the No. 1 priority at the next spending review.
My ministerial colleague will be very happy to meet with my hon. Friend.
The hon. Gentleman will see from the document that we are investing £300 million in the collaborative combat aircraft order. If he has further concerns and would like to discuss them with me or a ministerial colleague, we would be very happy to do that.
Our defence spending will mean billions of pounds of investment in Scotland, which will create good jobs for people, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I am very proud of that. The Government have had to make tough decisions. We have been honest about them, because we must ensure that we have the resource to invest in the capabilities required to keep the country safe. Those are the choices that we have taken, and we have taken them in our country’s best interests. I am afraid that not everyone will always agree with them—that is the nature of these things—but I have to do right by defence, our armed forces and the nation. I am content that this defence investment plan, a copy of which we will place in the Library of the House, does that.
I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman and I are unlikely to agree on the best approach when it comes to expenditure and defence, but I hope he will recognise that we have published the defence diplomacy strategy, and that we work closely across Government to align our resources and make sure we are contributing responsibly, along with our international allies. We take our obligations very seriously, not least as a leading member of NATO, but fundamentally this Government have an absolute requirement to make sure we safeguard our national security. That is a priority for this Government, as I hope it would be a priority for any Government, and we have to ensure we have appropriate levels of resource to do that. That requires prioritisation and difficult decisions, and that is what we have done.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and I can give him that assurance.
I am trying to help the right hon. Lady out here. This defence investment plan brings forward £15 billion of new investment; it sits alongside a commitment to spend £298 billion, and represents a 27% real-terms increase. I gently invite the right hon. Lady to review the record of the Government of which she was a part. This Government are putting in place the resource we need to secure our national security, which I hope is a shared endeavour across this House, even if not everybody is necessarily signed up to the plan.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, not least because it provides me with an opportunity to say how much we value the relationship and constructive partnership we have with our friends in Japan—I have engaged with my opposite number on a number of occasions over the past couple of weeks. GCAP is about building a sixth-generation fighter jet for the UK. This will take some time, and the programme is in its early stages, but it is already generating 4,500 jobs, with many more jobs coming online in due course. That is a good investment on behalf of the UK, and we very much welcome our partnership and relationship with both Japan and Italy.
The hon. Lady is right to raise concerns about the nature of the threat—it absolutely needs to focus all our minds, as well as those of our European and NATO partners. That is why we have brought forward this defence investment plan, making sure the capabilities that are in place will deliver the effect we need as early as possible. I agree with her concerns about the nature of the threat we face from Russia and—she and I have debated this on numerous occasions—other states as well. What we have to do is marshal the resources and capabilities to ensure we are best prepared, working alongside our allies. That is what this defence investment plan will do, but I accept the basic point that we will want and need to do more.
I completely agree with the point that my hon. Friend has made. It is important to underline that we are looking for some financial support from the SNP for those colleges, but he is right to make the point in the way that he does. I am proud that the investment that we have brought forward today will affect communities right across the country and generate 6,000 jobs around the UK.
Ground-to-air missile defence is listed as one of the major long-term investments, but not until 2030 to 2035. Given how important missile defences are in modern warfare and NATO’s warning to be prepared by the end of this decade, is this not one example in which, to be war ready, funding should be brought forward, not least for military sites, sites of critical national infrastructure, and towns and cities?
I have had the opportunity to look over defence equipment plans for the last 13 years, and have repeatedly seen—a profiling from over a decade—huge optimism about savings and efficiencies, which is how plans get across the line of affordability. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that there is proper parliamentary scrutiny of the plan, through the Public Accounts Committee, the Defence Committee and, hopefully next week—if Ministers from both the Treasury and Ministry of Defence agree to attend—the Treasury Committee, at a meeting including Defence Committee colleagues?
I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), on securing today’s debate and on all the work that she and her Committee members do. It has been a pleasure to hear not one but two maiden speeches this afternoon. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) on his excellent maiden speech. As a spokesperson for his party across several briefs during his time at Holyrood and as a former co-leader of Aberdeen city council, he brings extensive local knowledge to this place, and I wish him well in his career at Westminster. The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird)—who has already made a splash at Westminster—made a powerful speech today, including telling us about her choices of ice cream and pubs in her constituency and of course referencing the famous Arbroath smokies and Angus beef. Despite the limited time I have available, I will try to address as many as possible of the points Members have made, but I apologise in advance if I do not get to them all. Of course, I will respond in writing if need be. This debate has underlined that the DWP is a really important Department, supporting millions of people, and is the bedrock of our welfare state, which is the cornerstone of a civilised society. However, the welfare system must constantly change and adapt to the challenges and circumstances we find in this day and age. That is why we are recasting the welfare system to put work, skills and opportunity at its heart. I will start by addressing some of the recent changes to the Department. First, as hon. Members know, the DWP has taken on responsibility for adult skills from the Department for Education. This change strongly links skills and employment support to create genuine pathways into rewarding careers, supporting economic growth. We have already seen the benefits of that; the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy demonstrate the DWP’s priority of tackling youth unemployment and investing in young people’s futures. Secondly, the DWP now hosts the child poverty unit, which was moved from the Cabinet Office in March, reflecting the Department’s role as the centre of expertise for poverty policy and analysis. I reassure the House that we have ensured continuity of the cross-Government ministerial oversight of this important policy via the interministerial group on child poverty, which I am proud to co-chair and which will oversee delivery of the child poverty strategy. That strategy is all about maximising opportunity for young people and giving them the best start in life. That is why, as the centrepiece of our child poverty strategy, we have already removed the two-child limit in universal credit, which will lift more than half a million children out of poverty. Thirdly, we have seen the introduction of our new crisis and resilience fund, which is about getting people help before a crisis hits, not just afterwards. We retain the policy responsibility in the Department and have worked hard with all our key partners, including councils, the Local Government Association and community and voluntary sector organisations. As has already been said, the funding has been transferred to the local government finance settlement in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government. We think that is the right approach to make the funding process simpler and easier for local authorities, which are ultimately entrusted with deciding how best to provide this financial support to their communities. Supporting young people is the Department’s top priority. More than a million young people are not in work, education or training, and the Milburn review estimates that for every £1 that the DWP spent on employment support for young people in 2024-25, around £25 was spent on benefits for young people. That is a bad deal for young people and for the taxpayer. By 2031, that number is already expected to reduce from £25 to £10. That is what more investment in opportunity looks like. We are creating a total of half a million opportunities for young people, backed by £2.5 billion of additional investment, including our youth guarantee to ensure that every young person gets the chance to earn or learn. I will say a few words about employment support more generally. We are investing £3.5 billion in employment support for disabled people and those with long-term health conditions through our pathways to work offer. That includes Work Well and Connect to Work. I was pleased that the Select Committee recently produced a report on Connect to Work, and I was pleased to be in the Chamber for the Chair of the Select Committee’s statement on it last week. We are partnering with employers through the “Keep Britain Working” review to build healthier and more inclusive workplaces. We are building a new jobs and careers service, and I know that the Chair of the Select Committee in particular is following that development closely. I noted her comments on safeguarding and vulnerable customers. Alongside all that, we are rewiring the welfare system by changing the law so that claimants on sickness and disability benefits have the right to try work without the fear of automatically triggering a benefit reassessment. We also have the Timms review. I want to put things into context on welfare spending. Since this time last year, we have 400,000 more people in employment and welfare spending as a percentage of GDP continues to be broadly stable, as it has been for many years. We have slowed the increase in the number of people coming into health and disability benefits, but that is where spending is increasing most. As the Secretary of State has said, we are not circling the wagons around the status quo; we are reforming the system. We are putting work, skills and opportunity at the heart of the system. We are building not just a welfare state, but a working state that is active, efficient and fit for the times in which we live; that rejects wasting talent and potential and writing people off; and that always asks how we can help people to move into good jobs and fulfil their potential.
I welcome the increased investment in defence, which should not only ensure our security but drive economic growth. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend reassure me, first, that the Ministry of Defence is capable of innovatively procuring innovation, with the support of our nation’s start-ups and scale-ups, rather than focusing on the bureaucratic long-term processes with which my Committee is so familiar? Secondly, the north-east sends the largest proportion of young people into the armed forces of any region in this country, yet it has the lowest proportion of defence spending. That is unacceptable. The defence investment plan has no place-based programmes apart from the defence growth zones, and the north-east is missing out on those. What will my right hon. Friend do to ensure that the north-east’s commitment is rewarded with investment?
I thank the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for her comments. Life sciences are one of the country’s great strengths. We have world-leading universities, brilliant researchers, innovative companies, NHS experts and public investment. The life sciences support high-skilled jobs, drive growth and, most importantly, transform patients’ lives. The UK invented the covid vaccine, pioneered in vitro fertilisation and sequenced DNA, but we are slower than many other nations at diffusing innovation. The NHS spends £27 billion a year buying stuff that should be helping to give British patients access to innovative treatments, guaranteeing high-tech start-ups and scale-ups their first contract, and enabling clinical trials and exciting new drugs. However, in evidence to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, we have heard that bureaucratic processes and a culture of inertia mean that adoption is far quicker in the US, for example. My Committee was told that the NHS has more pilots than British Airways, but innovation still is not getting through. Sometimes it can seem easier to be locked into tech giants such as Palantir. My Committee has warned against that, but we do want the UK to be a great place to grow life sciences businesses. Last year, following a series of cancelled investments, we held an emergency inquiry into this area. Witnesses were clear that the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth, or VPAG, was a big issue, but there were also deeper questions on whether the UK is spending enough on medicines, whether patients are getting timely access to innovation and whether companies have confidence to invest for the long term. I very much welcome that the UK has secured zero tariffs on pharmaceuticals and an exemption from the US’s most-favoured-nation pricing policy, but the arrangement is not treaty-based and is therefore not subject to scrutiny. The final cost is not clear. It depends on which medicines the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence approves and what the actual NHS uptake is. We all agree that the NHS must get value for money. Every pound spent on one part of healthcare is precious and cannot be spent elsewhere, but innovative treatments can reduce healthcare demand, and companies need to know that they have a market if they are to invest in research and development, clinical trials and manufacturing in the UK. The Minister needs to explain how these figures, such as the 0.6% of GDP, were arrived at. What international analysis has the Minister commissioned to justify them? In particular, where does the UK sit internationally? We heard from President Trump that the UK does not pay enough, but the US system is one of the most bloated and overpriced in the world, with health accounting for 18% of GDP, with worse outcomes than the NHS, which accounts for 10% of UK GDP.
As many hon. Members have said, high streets speak to something fundamental about our identity and self-confidence in the places we call home. However, in too many towns up and down our country, they are now filled with betting shops, charity shops, vape shops or, in many cases, empty shop windows, devoid of life. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) spoke about design codes and shop frontages, which is a really important point that the Government should grip in recognising the civic importance of those spaces. If we allow the country to see that our standards have slipped, it is no wonder that standards slip elsewhere. To create an environment where it is possible for the kinds of businesses that we want to see succeed once again, we must give them what they need most: a community of customers on their doorstep. That means embracing residential-led high street regeneration, which is why I am delighted to support Capital&Centric’s confidence in Crewe town centre with its proposed regeneration of the Royal Arcade, supported by 500 homes, plus bars, cafés, restaurants and other uses.
Yes, I absolutely agree. We also need a tax system that incentivises the kinds of economic activity we want to see for the Pride in Place agenda. Too many of my small independent hospitality businesses have told me that it is not where we currently are. Kelly, from St Martha Greek taverna, is campaigning along with 50 local independent hospitality businesses, including the Red Cow and the GOAT sports bar in Nantwich, as well as Noodle Gurus in Crewe, alongside many others, to join our European counterparts in cutting VAT to 10% for hospitality businesses. I am proud to support their campaign. We need a stronger state, capable and willing to intervene at local level to fix things when the market fails to do so. I am a huge supporter of the high street rental auctions and the Pride in Place agenda, but we must go further in giving local authorities the power, capacity, confidence and funding to put those powers to use so that my constituents can once again be truly proud of the civic spaces that we call our town centres. If we act decisively, we can restore pride in our high streets and ensure that they once again reflect the strength and character of our communities.
I welcome this investment in our defence. Will my right hon. Friend say just how difficult the hollowing out of our defence spending under the previous Government has made it to build the capacity to spend that money?
The £50 billion defence export fund to support British defence businesses is welcome and will create jobs in my constituency and across Lancashire. Will my right hon. Friend expand on that? Can the fund be used to place orders of Typhoons now, ahead of selling to our allies, so that the production line can continue with Tempest? Will he agree to meet with me and all Lancashire colleagues to discuss this matter further?
There are concerns that the changes the Government have made will give more power to judges to make decisions on their own, so what is the Minister doing to monitor the impact of these changes and ensure that there is transparency at all stages? Can I add, following your comment, Mr Speaker, that we would like to see Harlow magistrates court reopen as well as Chorley magistrates court?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the previous statement, conversation was had about the future of the UK Health Security Agency. You will be aware that the Government last year made a decision that the new site of the UK Health Security Agency would be in my constituency of Harlow. It is therefore not subject to the defence investment plan. I just wanted to get that on the record.
As my hon. Friend is talking about local implementation, I will pay tribute to what is being done in Harlow, and particularly at Harlow college, through programmes to support people who are not in education, employment or training. That is really paying dividends.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend would like to touch on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes). She was right to say that the Child Maintenance Service—
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. This is a hugely consequential instrument. Little democracy remains in our planning system, and this legislation will cut the amount down further. We are elected to this place to serve the public, not treat them as a problem to be silenced. The measures will mean that individual councillors lose the ability to directly call in planning decisions completely, and that democratically elected councillors get to publicly scrutinise and vote on planning decisions only in exceptional circumstances, even for schedule 2 applications. With no committees for the vast majority of decisions, they will also mean that the public lose their chance to speak for a few minutes in front of those deciding on what gets built and where in their local area. In effect, in many circumstances, they will render our constituents and their locally elected representatives bystanders in the future of their own community. The measures seem to directly contradict Labour’s historic mission to redistribute power, not to mention the current drive for devolution and putting decision-making power back in local hands. Streamlining our processes, in my view, cannot justify to my constituents the loss of their voice through these measures. I fear that the case for these changes relies overwhelmingly on anecdote and the belief that locally elected councillors are too responsive to the hopes and concerns of those they represent, and that by taking councillors out of the equation, more planning applications will be approved in spite of the public’s hopes and concerns. It is not a lack of planning permissions that underpins our decades-long failure to address our nation’s housing needs, however, and these measures will do nothing to build the hundreds of thousands of council houses we need. Whitehall is also not the best place to define which planning decisions are important enough for local democratic scrutiny; it is our local councils that have the knowledge and understanding of their communities needed to inform that choice. I absolutely accept that years of incoherent tinkering have created a planning system that is no longer fit for purpose. It is procedurally complex, it does not secure public support for future development, it does not build the affordable homes we need, and it is producing poor-quality, unsustainable outcomes—but making more decisions behind closed doors will not remedy any of that. Some may argue that this measure represents a shift towards a rules-based planning system by taking democratic discretion out of the equation, but the irony is that it is the decades-long deregulation of our planning system and the ever-growing focus on developer-led, speculative applications for building new housing that make the application of discretionary scrutiny essential. If we wanted a truly rules-based system, we would focus on reform that puts powers in the hands of local communities to decide for themselves through a genuinely co-designed local plan where, how and in what way their housing needs could be met. To conclude, this is a bad piece of legislation that will do nothing to help our constituents off housing waiting lists or to secure public consent for development in this country. It will hang like an albatross around the Government’s neck. The public anger about and resistance to damaging and speculative plans put forward by profiteering land promoters and developers will not disappear if this legislation comes into force; it will simply be redirected to target the planning officers who will have to enact it, the Members of Parliament who allowed democracy to be quietly killed off in a Committee Room, and Labour Ministers every time a councillor has to explain to their residents that they can no longer publicly scrutinise and challenge inappropriate development because this Government abandoned their own best traditions and stripped them of their rights. All that the statutory instrument will achieve is more polarisation and yet further erosion of trust in our political system, so I urge the Committee to reject these proposals. I urge the Government to choose a different course that recognises communities as a positive force to be empowered and that focuses on securing the highest-quality development plans to win genuine social licence to build, rather than trying to silence opposition to the development of unhappiness given physical form, which has already done so much damage to our country.
Is that not potentially reintroducing the same level of discretion and difference across the country if local planning authorities choose to use those powers in different ways?
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I would like to make a couple of additional points, adding to the really important comments made by the Minister about why these changes are important. It is worth dwelling on the fact that housing in this country is prohibitively expensive for too many people. That is the reason why people are increasingly having to wait so long to get on the housing ladder. Fundamentally, housing is too expensive because, first, there is not enough of it and, secondly, increasingly it is too expensive to build new housing units. If we want to bring the cost of housing down, we have to address those two problems. We have to increase the number of new homes that are built, but also decrease the cost of building them. On the latter, increasing global pressures, from supply chain disruptions to the impact of geopolitical events, are pushing up construction and labour costs. Most of those headwinds are outside our control, but when we have difficult headwinds it is even more important that we do everything we can with the levers that are within our control to bring down the cost of construction. I mention that because one of the most damaging, self-inflicted and unnecessary costs in our current house building system is uncertainty. Right now, there could be companies out there—including developers, housing associations or, as the shadow Minister said, local councils—that are looking to build new homes. They could be doing everything right; they could be putting the land together and coming up with a plan that builds the right amount of affordable housing, gives local planning gains and supports local infrastructure. After putting all that investment and support in, coming up with a plan and designing a project, they could still face the daunting prospect of having that development blocked at the eleventh hour by the whims of a small number of local councillors, who are often responding completely rationally to local political incentives. Obviously, those trade-offs exists. That uncertainty comes at a cost: we either add to the price of a house that constituents are paying for, or we decrease the amount of planning gain that we can make from the developers. By definition, it either means higher housing costs or it means fewer GP surgeries, less road infrastructure or fewer affordable homes being built. That is the cost of having more uncertainty in the system. It is right that we reduce that uncertainty; one way to do that is by having decisions made by officers who are following planning laws, rather than by people who are responding to political incentives.
I do not believe that democracy is changing it. It is fundamentally the incentives of certain local politicians to do this when they can have a veto power over a development that has a wider gain, often outside their local constituencies. That is a wider consequence. I am democratically elected, as is the shadow Minister, so in this sovereign Parliament we have the ability and right to set the rules under which that democracy operates.
I thank the shadow Minister for making that point because it was the last point I was going to briefly make before wrapping up. This is the key point: it adds not only uncertainty, but delays. If uncertainty has costs in the housing system, the developers might go to the Planning Inspectorate, but that adds extra delay and costs. Most of the developments in schedule 1 are very small—often up to just 10 properties. The margins that a developer would make on that project are much smaller than the costs of that delay and of having to go to the Planning Inspectorate in the first place. That means that most developments across the country have effectively stopped construction altogether. The big consequence of that is that SME builders, particularly those in local communities who have generally been building smaller sized developments, are going under. One of the only ways to fix that is by bringing certainty back into the system, given that uncertainty is one of the reasons why they have been facing challenges.
I have taken up too much time; people really want to get off. We all accept that we should be focusing on smaller sites because, as the Minister set out, the bigger sites should be decided and focused on by the planning committees. This measure will free up more of their time to focus on those bigger sites and issues. However, schedule 1 sets the size of small sites at nine properties or fewer, which I think is at the lower end of people’s expectations. I appreciate that the Minister has done lots of consultation work on the draft regulations, but given that just 69% of the properties built each year would fall into that category, can he please give us some information on how he has settled on that number? Will he consider raising that number in future, if he is convinced that it would lead to more benefit and more good-quality homes being constructed?
To prove that point, the hon. Gentleman would need to prove that the types of applications currently going to either officers or planning committees are effectively random, but they are not. We know that different types of applications go to each one, so we cannot make that comparison between the two numbers.
I hope you would agree, Mr Speaker, that I have always done my level best to come to the House first with any new announcements. As I told the House last Thursday in written and oral statements, the Government’s new steel trade measure comes into force tomorrow, immediately succeeding the expiry of the steel safeguard, ensuring that there is no gap in protection for our domestic steel industry. The European Union has today also announced the details of its trade measure, which comes into force tomorrow. Since the announcement of its measure on 7 October last year, we have engaged extensively with the EU and agreed an approach that reflects the UK and the EU’s highly interconnected supply chains. This will provide stability for UK-EU steel trade from 1 July while we continue to work together to strengthen UK-EU steel trade for the longer term. As Members would expect, our engagement has also covered the matter of Northern Ireland in some detail. This ensures that specific arrangements are and will be in place to facilitate the continued smooth movement of steel to Northern Ireland from Great Britain, guaranteeing that movements of steel within the UK market will not pay EU tariffs. These arrangements, which are aimed at comprehensively protecting the UK internal market, include the retention of the seven tariff-rate quotas—for categories 7, 8, 9, 13, 17, 25A and 28—and specific arrangements for other categories that will continue to mean that UK-origin steel can move tariff-free to Northern Ireland. The arrangements will operate from tomorrow, 1 July, and taken together will serve to protect the operation of the UK internal market and flows of goods within it. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is now taking steps to confirm the arrangements with industry, including business representative organisations in Northern Ireland. The Government will continue to provide guidance and support to traders moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland through the trader support service, and we will work closely with the EU to ensure that these arrangements operate effectively in practice. We are doing two things. First, we are protecting the UK internal market; secondly, we are giving UK steel production the protection it needs so that we have strong UK steel production that is able to meet at least 50% of the UK’s steel needs.
I am sorry, but I think that the absurdity all lies with the hon. and learned Member. He seems to be trying to create a difference between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which we are striving in every way to prevent. We have made it absolutely clear that the existing—[Interruption.] If he chunters from his seat he will not be able to hear what I am saying; I might be able to enlighten him. There are seven key categories that are most important to Northern Ireland. Category 7—steel plate—is important for shipbuilding and defence. Category 8—stainless, hot-rolled sheets and strips—is important for automotives. Category 9—stainless, cold-rolled sheets and strips—is also important for automotives. Category 13—rebar—is important for construction. Category 17—steel beams—is also important for construction. Category 25A—large tubes—is vital for the oil and gas industry. Category 28 —alloy wire—is important for fencing. In all those categories, we have maintained the tariff-rate quotas. There is no difference. From the initial conversations I had with the European Union back in December last year, we have made it absolutely clear that we want to make sure that there is a single market between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that there is no border down the Irish sea. All this shows the patent nonsense of having left the European Union. I know that the people of Northern Ireland agreed with me on that and disagreed with the hon. and learned Member. The truth is that we would not have to negotiate with the European Union on these matters if we were still a member, and there would not be any of these quota issues. It is true that there is a problem with overcapacity of steel around the world, but the UK is not the problem for the EU, and the EU is not the problem for the UK, so, frankly, we should come to a very sensible arrangement. That is what we have mostly managed to do so far, but we will continue to discuss it with the EU. Seventy-three per cent of steel imports into the whole of the UK, which includes Northern Ireland, are completely excluded from the measure, and the tariffs only apply above the quota levels.[Official Report, 12 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 1WC.] (Correction) For many categories, we have managed to create quota levels that are above existing trade flow levels, so I do not expect there to be problems in those. But in some areas we are deliberately trying to make sure that people use British steel, because Britain now produces only 4 million tonnes of steel. If we do not continue to make steel in this country, a significant problem will accrue to us into the future.
As I explained last Thursday, we have introduced transitional arrangements to make sure that for the first quarter, imports are possible where people already have contracts to bring stuff in. As I say, 73% of UK imports of steel will not be in scope of the measure at all and can come into the UK easily.[Official Report, 12 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 1WC.] (Correction) We are simply trying to make sure that for the categories of steel that we produce in the UK, people turn to British production. That is the way in which we can ensure that we still have strong steel production in the UK into the future. If my hon. Friend has specific issues relating to a company in his constituency, I am very happy for my officials to meet with them.
I will start with the question about the Minister for Industry and his visit to Northern Ireland. He is visiting shipbuilding and aerospace companies. The visit does not specifically relate to steel at all. On steel generally, the Conservatives’ record is absolutely shocking, and we will not be going down the route that they went down. When they came to power in 2010, the UK was producing 12 million tonnes of steel, and when they left power we were producing 4 million tonnes. That is an existential crisis that happened entirely on their watch. We need to address it, and we are serious about doing so. Incidentally, countless contracts for major infrastructure projects in the UK that were awarded by the previous Government, including through the Ministry of Defence, regularly went to steel produced in other countries. I am not going to follow the route that the hon. Lady’s party went down. In fact, the then Prime Minister even refused to meet with steelworkers. That shows the level of concern that the Conservative Government had with steel. We are determined to make sure that we have a proper steel production industry in the UK, and that means that we have to take some tough measures. In relation to the European Union, to be fair to the hon. Lady, she was not a leaver. She was in favour of remaining in the European Union. The UK has now secured 1.05 megatonnes of guaranteed access through country-specific quotas and 1.09 megatonnes of access through competitive pools—a total access of up to 2.14 megatonnes through the EU process. UK steel exports to the EU averaged 1.82 megatonnes between 2022 and 2024 when including products covered by the EU steel measure, so we did end up with a good result. The truth of the matter, as I have said before and as we have said repeatedly to many others, is that it would be much more sensible if there was an exemption between the UK and the EU in relation to steel measures, so that neither of us was facing quotas or tariffs, because frankly we are not the problem for each other. There is a danger that in specific instances, some companies might facing tariffs going in both directions, such as Marcegaglia, which is a part-Italian, part-British steel manufacturer. I just want to correct one other thing. The hon. Lady has repeatedly said on her X account that there will be a 50% tariff on all steel imports. This is patently untrue, and I really hope that she starts correcting the record.