Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Waiting times for cataract operations in my constituency are rising hugely because the local ICB and its AI system have stopped offering services through all the advertised providers, and the ICB has scrapped its contract with Specsavers, meaning that only GPs can diagnose the problem. Will the Minister have a look at the local problem and intervene so that we have the widest and best range of providers to reduce those waiting lists?
I echo the Secretary of State’s comments in condemning this dreadful attack. Last night’s attack in north Belfast was horrifying, appalling and deeply disturbing. This was a brutal act of violence that will send shockwaves through the local community and cause huge concern across the city, Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with the victim, whose condition has been described as serious. I also pay tribute to the PSNI and the members of the public who displayed remarkable courage in stepping in to confront the attacker before the police arrived. The Police Service of Northern Ireland must be given the time and space to carry out a full and thorough investigation, and those responsible must face the full force of the law. However, given the understandable public concern surrounding the incident, it is vital that the facts are established and we have the transparency that people deserve. Can the Secretary of State confirm the immigration status of the attacker? If, as is reported, the attacker is a foreign national, what steps will the Home Office take? The facts should be put on the public record urgently to avoid speculation and prevent an information vacuum, which the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has warned about. If there have been failings on our borders, this will be yet another reminder that we do need stronger borders, which is why we believe it is time to leave the European convention on human rights. I encourage all who have evidence of the attack to come forward and support the PSNI in its investigation. I join the Secretary of State and all communities in condemning this horrific attack.
As Members will be aware, part of the Scunthorpe steelworks site falls within my Brigg and Immingham constituency. As such, hundreds of my constituents work there, and hundreds more are employed in the supply chain. With that in mind, I made it known to my constituents a number of weeks ago that I would support this Bill. It could have been improved, and the Opposition tabled some perfectly sensible amendments, which I supported. However, having got to this stage, I think it is only right that we give our full support to the business and, more importantly, to the workers employed there. I thank the Minister with responsibility for steel. We have had a number of meetings in recent weeks, and he has been extremely helpful. As I said in a previous contribution to this debate, it is not natural for me as a Conservative to support a nationalisation Bill, but the reality is that it is of course a restructuring. The existing position whereby the Chinese own the business and the Government in effect run it is clearly unsustainable, and we cannot allow that to continue, so it is a perfectly sensible move. I was reassured by what the Minister said in yesterday’s debate about the Government looking for private sector involvement, whether that be a wholesale sale or a partnership arrangement. I have met two or three groups that are interested in investing in the sector. Indeed, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) and I had quite an interesting evening a few weeks ago listening to what was, I think it is fair to say, quite an ambitious plan for steel, so there are organisations and businesses that are prepared to invest. Scunthorpe without steel would not be Scunthorpe. As a resident of Grimsby, I have witnessed what can happen to a town when it loses its core industry—in the case of Grimsby, it was of course the deep-sea fishing industry—and when that happens, it takes about two generations for the local economy to be able to sustain the jobs that are necessary. On that basis, I will certainly be supporting the Bill. The Minister was not quite 100% clear when challenged about the continuation of production in blast furnaces. I know the situation, and I recognise that a long-term move to electric arc furnaces is perhaps the only way to sustain the industry and the jobs in Scunthorpe. So I await developments with interest, but at this stage I welcome the Bill, which is a sensible way forward and has my full support.
As I mentioned to the Minister for the Middle East last week, not all of the Shi’a community in Lebanon support Hezbollah or Iran, and the majority do not support violence; they want to live in peace like all of us, whatever country we are in. The Foreign Secretary will know that the Amal movement is a Shi’a political movement. While it is not a benign movement, it is probably a better interlocutor than Hezbollah to work with in rebuilding the whole nation of Lebanon—subject to conditions—which will of course include the important Shi’ite community. What more can the Government do to increase the capacity building of political parties and movements that want to move away from armed violence and struggle?
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. What exactly are the Brits going to contribute to the multinational maritime mission in terms of hardware? Has Ukraine offered up its two Sandown-class mine-clearing vessels and crew, which are currently in Portsmouth?
This is not my specialist subject, so I ask the Minister to bear with me. Thames Covers in Shepperton in my Spelthorne constituency, which is a boat fitter, has been told that the cost of stainless steel tubing will go up by 50% from 1 July because of a new tariff kicking in. As I understand it, the tariff is to encourage people to buy British Steel, but the trouble is that British Steel does not make stainless steel tubing, so it will add a huge cost. The Minister says the Bill is not about individual businesses, but about overall governance. However, the Government may be causing unintended consequences, and perhaps the impact assessments we are calling for in new clause 7 would be a good idea.
15. What steps he is taking to improve accountability in the health service.
We need more local accountability in the NHS. In Broxbourne we have seen thousands of new houses built, but when I and local Conservative councillors have pushed for new healthcare facilities to cope with the new demand, we have been refused. Can the Minister explain who will be accountable for that under the Government’s new system?
One of the most depressing things about these statements is the profound damage that they do to British national interests and our standing in the world through their pathetic delusion. On Gaza, could the Foreign Secretary confirm that she is aware that in the last two weeks Israeli Ministers have made clear their desire for the mass emigration of Palestinians from the territory, and that we should see the stranglehold they have imposed in that context? Could the Foreign Secretary also confirm that the meagre sanctions that the previous and current Government have imposed so far have had absolutely no impact on the conduct of anybody in Israel, let alone the Israeli Government, and that the current wave of what she is calling sanctions are not actually sanctions but asset freezes? That means that unless the organisations or individuals targeted have assets in the UK, the measures will have no impact. In fact, the regime that she has chosen to bring them in under does not even include goods and services, so as we are all still free to sell those organisations or individuals bricks and mortar, corrugated iron or insurance, the measures are unlikely to have any impact whatsoever on what is going on in the west bank.
9. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on improving cross-border healthcare.
For my constituents in the Scottish Borders, accessing NHS treatment can sometimes be more complicated than it should be. Some residents in the Scottish Borders are registered with GP practices in Northumberland, but their medical records are not always shared properly between NHS services in England and Scotland. The SNP Government refuse to allow reciprocal care, so will the Minister urgently work with the Scottish Government to ensure my constituents can be properly treated as close to home as possible?
The crisis in social care is particularly bad in my constituency on the Isle of Wight, partly because of our unique geography but also because the Government have reduced funding to our local authority. Our council is now looking at discharging patients to the mainland, away from family and friends, which is completely unacceptable. Will the Government recognise our unique challenges as an English island and help provide a social care solution that recognises the challenges that we face?
Thank you for chairing the Committee, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation of what is essentially a pickle of the Government’s own making. We will not divide on the regulations because we recognise that there is a real problem that has to be solved. But rather than fiddling around with emergency statutory instruments to plug a gap, the real problem is the Government’s running down of the domestic energy sector and our ability to refine jet-grade oil and supply our airline industry. We need to rejuvenate our energy sector, encouraging the investment and business conditions that will allow refineries to reopen. That is essential to manage the challenges posed by fuel shortages—I am thinking of Stanlow, Fawley, Pembroke and others. We have the ability to refine jet fuel in this country; we just need to expand it. The problem with the Government’s other policies on energy is that they are making it so expensive to operate energy-intensive businesses such as oil refining in this country that the industry has voted with its feet and left in a large percentage. We do not actually need less jet fuel than before the conflict in the middle east began. In fact, the spiralling cost of the carbon tax has meant that refineries are struggling to remain open. That will only increase our reliance on imports and make us vulnerable to geopolitical concerns around the strait of Hormuz. If we want to support our oil refining sector, we must start by removing the additional costs, such as the carbon tax, while backing our North sea oil and gas industry to support the energy ecosystem that we rely on. That includes licences for new exploration and drilling. However, we have seen little evidence of that—in fact, quite the opposite in the case of the North sea, with the Government’s baffling legislative proposal on new licences. Given the Government’s lack of commitment to tackling the fundamental issue, they have turned to these regulations, which have had the unfortunate consequence of dividing the opinions of airlines and airports. While airlines broadly support the proposals, we should acknowledge—as I hope the Minister will—the ongoing and significant concerns of airports. Those concerns have increased over the near two years of this Government’s rule, because of their mix of anti-business mandates and enormous increases to business rates, which have imposed significant costs on airports, even if they have managed to avoid the preposterous increases that were originally set out. The increases will create further challenges for regional airports, which face some of the steepest charges. We only have to look at Heathrow, which had an initial proposal of a 350% increase in its business rates. The combination of measures has made airports wary, so it is unsurprising that they have concerns about the concept of an increased number of flights being cancelled under a new regime, with the cost of those empty slots being borne by the airports. I understand that this goes to the winter of 2027, though I think the Minister said June 2026. I may have misheard him, so perhaps he could clarify—
If we could have a bit more clarity on that, I would be grateful. The director of the Airports Council International Europe went so far as to say: “The UK Government is effectively handing airlines a carte blanche to cut services and not deliver their schedules, leaving passengers, communities and airports to bear the full brunt.” Although I appreciate that there is a balance to be struck, that is a strong argument and deserves a direct response from the Minister about how he will maintain the balance through these regulations. We all appreciate the importance of airport slot alleviation, particularly if there are significant fuel shortages, so I will not oppose the regulations today. Nevertheless, the proposals have been introduced in such a way that I think it is incumbent upon the Minister to address a few of the issues. That includes whether there are sufficient protections for travellers under the 14-day window, and whether he is confident that the system will work as intended and we will not see people’s holidays more disrupted than necessary over the summer period. In addition, I would be interested in hearing his rationale for extending the period into the winter when the peak period for flights is during the summer. Would it have been feasible to make changes at a later date, particularly if the Government get around to passing their Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill in a more timely manner than they appear to be doing at the moment? Ultimately, the Government are right to ensure that there is flexibility when there is a crisis, but we have been repeatedly told that there is not a jet fuel shortage. That is always liable to change, but those comments raise fair questions from the sector about the appropriateness of the regulations that the Government propose. I hope that the Minister can answer some of the concerns of airports, and, frankly, my concerns about the risk posed to the travelling public, so that there can be clarity about the necessity of these measures beyond the existing alleviation rules.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The lens through which we must view any legislation on contracts for difference, including the draft regulations before us, is one that asks: what do contracts for difference mean for all our constituents who ultimately pay the energy bills? The Opposition oppose forcing families and businesses to pay even more money to subsidise wind and solar developers, which I am afraid is precisely what happened in the last allocation round for contracts for difference, which the draft regulations amend. My Conservative colleagues and I warned Ministers for months that wind and solar developers would take advantage of the Government’s blind commitment to building more clean power, regardless—I repeat, regardless—of the cost. What was the result? Prices that were far higher than those agreed in the previous allocation round, higher than the average cost of electricity the year before, and the highest in over a decade. The Government are locking in uncompetitive electricity prices for decades to come. Britain already has the highest electricity prices in the world, and it is now clear that it is the cost of the excess capacity, curtailment, batteries, storage systems and interconnectors, as well as the imports of gas needed to offset the intermittency of renewables and the subsidies that developers are extracting to pay for this, that are driving up prices in the long term. It is a reality that seemingly everyone but the Government have come to accept, with energy bosses giving a pointed warning to Parliament last year that the price of electricity could be higher in 2030 than it is now even if gas were free, because of these rising network and policy costs. If the Government believe that their policy will lower energy bills in the long term, can the Minister promise that the maximum strike prices agreed in allocation round 8 will be lower than the price of gas-powered electricity last year, and lower than the strike prices agreed in previous allocation rounds? If the Minister cannot answer those straightforward questions, how can the Government continue to claim that their policy is lowering the cost of energy, when the available evidence suggests otherwise? Today’s draft regulations may involve just a number of minor technical amendments, and His Majesty’s official Opposition will not divide the Committee today, but the bigger picture to which the draft regulations speak should be of concern of all members of the Committee, and all Members of the wider House.
11. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of unreported removals from waiting lists.
People in Beverley and Holderness want high-quality and speedy care, not massaged waiting list numbers that suit Labour narratives. Of course, Mr Speaker, you will remember that the last Labour Government had form on this as well, because the National Audit Office repeatedly found that the numbers were manipulated when waiting lists were similarly put on a pedestal. The Minister has the new Secretary of State by her side. Can she reassure people in Beverley and Holderness that we will have genuinely improved healthcare, rather than widespread manipulation and the cleansing of waiting lists to suit political purposes?
I call Maya Ellis, who has just arrived.
Before Mr Paffey replies, I should tell all Members that it is rude to join during a speech and then ask a question first thing. It is not the etiquette of the House. Please come at the start of the debate in future.
Order. I am mindful of the time. It might have to be four minutes each to make sure that everybody gets in.
I will call Hannah Spencer to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they need to have sought permission from the Member in charge if they wish to intervene.
My hon. Friend and I have both been Ministers; we know that a written ministerial statement is not a complicated thing to do every three or four months or whatever it is. I struggle to see what reason there could be not to give Parliament that transparency, for the simple sake of a piece of paper tabled once every three months, to ensure that taxpayers’ interests are protected.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the Minister for explaining this statutory instrument. It is very appropriate that we are considering it on the day after World Oceans Day. On our precious planet, we are blessed to have oceans and seas rich in biodiversity. It is an asset that we share in common with the rest of the world—a good in itself that sustains a diverse range of life. From whales to coral reefs, we have a vast array of fish, animals, plants and microorganisms living in our oceans. Our oceans and seas contain more than 80% of the world’s biodiversity. Biodiversity is vital not only for protecting species and preventing extinction, but for safeguarding human health. Oceans and seas are a key source of the world’s food and oxygen, but they also greatly contribute to our understanding of the natural and life sciences. The UK has long been a global leader in marine research, supported by world-renowned institutions such as the Natural History Museum, the national museums in Wales and Scotland, the National Oceanography Centre and our outstanding universities, many of which hold internationally important repositories of marine biological data. Marine genetic resources in particular demonstrate the direct link between ocean biodiversity and human wellbeing. Compounds derived from marine organisms have been instrumental in developing new medicines. Treatments for coronavirus, cancer, inflammatory conditions and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s all draw in part from genetic material found in our oceans and seas. Protecting marine diversity is therefore not only an environmental imperative but a foundation for future medical breakthroughs. The previous Conservative Government understood the need to conserve the biodiversity of our oceans and seas. That led Conservative Ministers to commit in the convention on biological diversity to protect a minimum of 30% of global ocean by 2030. In government, we Conservatives took real, practical steps to protect our marine environment. We strengthened England’s marine protected areas regime, establishing 181 MPAs, which now cover around 40% of English waters. Recognising that the UK’s overseas territories encompass 4.4 million square km of marine environment across every major ocean basin, we worked to conserve those precious ecosystems by halting biodiversity loss, supporting sustainable growth and connecting people with these precious natural environments. We Conservatives also understood that the challenge does not end at our own shores. Around two thirds of the world’s oceans—roughly 61%—lie in areas beyond national jurisdiction: the waters outside any coastal state’s exclusive economic zone. Those vast areas are home to extraordinary biodiversity, yet no single nation can protect them alone. That is why Conservative Ministers championed general international co-operation to safeguard those waters and to support research into marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. As we look ahead, it is vital that we strengthen that co-operation. Safeguarding life in areas beyond national jurisdiction is a shared global responsibility, and only by working with our international partners can we preserve these ecosystems for the benefit of humanity. The previous Conservative Government played a central role in negotiating the UN’s biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement. Signed on 20 September 2023, that landmark agreement represented a major victory for ocean protection and multilateral diplomacy. As the UK follows a dualist approach to international treaties, Parliament must pass domestic legislation before such agreements can take effect. I am therefore pleased that the current Government have continued the work that the Conservatives began by bringing the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026 into force. That ensures that the UK now has the legal framework required to implement the agreement fully, responsibly and in line with the commitments that we helped to shape on the global stage. The Minister will recall that during the passage of the 2026 Act, His Majesty’s official Opposition repeatedly raised concerns that while the Government were seeking to champion biodiversity and conservation on the global stage, they were simultaneously threatening to surrender the Chagos Islands, which may have risked the Chagos marine protected area, particularly should Mauritius not be able to enforce the protection. We therefore welcome the fact that the Prime Minister appears to have listened to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, the Chagossian community and wider public concern, as it appears that they have stepped back from proposals that could have jeopardised both the future of the islands and the integrity of the marine protected area. Can the Minister confirm that that remains the case? I am pleased to say that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support the draft order, albeit it is a shame that it has taken so long to be introduced, which has been noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Once the agreement is ratified, the onus will shift to implementation. Can the Minister provide some reassurance that the Government will continue to work closely with key stakeholders such as the cable sector and marine scientists? We look forward to further progress from the Government in this vital area.
It is good that you are carrying on with the good work.
I know that the Minister is winding up, and that she has spoken about Ministers going to summits and collaboration, but she spoke about the importance of implementation. I asked specifically about what the Government will do to liaise with key stakeholders in the area, such as the cable sector, marine scientists, merchant navies and so on. The UK has a global footprint, so it is important that this Government take the baton that the Conservatives passed to them and work closely with stakeholders. Can she reassure the Committee that the Government will work closely with stakeholders on the frontline?
Last month, the Health Service Journal reported that the elective waiting list target was met largely—largely—because a record number of patients were removed from waiting lists in March without receiving treatment. Can the Minister tell the House how many patients were removed in March and what happened to them, and whether she is satisfied that they definitely did not need treatment?
It is not just the Conservatives who are raising this issue; it is patients and the Health Service Journal. The answer is that 350,000 people—a city the size of Coventry—were wiped off the waiting list with no treatment, and that is 100,000 more than the month before. If there is genuinely nothing to hide, the Government should not worry about putting out the figures. Will the Minister commit to a review to find out what has happened to those 350,000 patients, or does she believe that waiting list targets should be met by removing patients from the figures rather than actually treating them?
2. What steps he is taking to maintain non-digital access to primary care.
I understand why making use of the NHS app and online appointments is sensible and works well for many patients, but I cannot be the only MP to have heard from constituents—you may even have heard from your constituents, Mr Speaker—who struggle with that. They may not have a smartphone. I have met many elderly patients who simply cannot make use of online forms and too often GP practices do not make it easy for them to make appointments by telephone or by walking in. It is important that the Government make it crystal clear to all our GP providers, who I know are doing their best, that no matter how far we go with digital innovation, our patients must always be able to access primary care through traditional routes, such as making an appointment by telephone or by walking in.
Does the Secretary of State agree that state-funded healthcare should be provided to all children based on clinical need, not economic or educational status?
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Does he therefore share my concern at reports that some children are being turned away from state-funded healthcare because they are not attending a state school? Will he look into those reports and ensure that he makes provision for children who are not attending state schools to receive the healthcare they need?
Can the Foreign Secretary explain the “multi” bit of the multinational maritime mission, because so far all I see are contributions from France and the UK? In particular, she said that she had spoken to her interlocutors last week in China and India. One is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the other is a member of the G20, and both of them stand to suffer far more than the UK and France do from a cessation of trade in oil, gas and fertiliser. What assets will China and India be providing to this multinational maritime mission?
7. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the provision of health services for men.
The NHS itself says that prostate cancer often has no symptoms at first, and Prostate Cancer UK says most men with early prostate cancer have no symptoms at all. The Government’s TRANSFORM trial exists because current detection methods are recognised as inadequate. Why does Government messaging still point men towards early symptoms that they are unlikely to have, while cancers that could be cured are becoming cancers that cannot?
A few weeks ago, I met leaders from Moorside high school and Werrington primary school in the villages of Werrington and Cellarhead, which are both suffering with real road safety concerns. They are located on the A52, which is one of the main arterial roads into Stoke-on-Trent. Traffic moves quickly down those roads, yet there are simply no safety measures. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the local authority and relevant agencies to facilitate urgent action including the installation of safe pedestrian crossings, the introduction of stronger parking restrictions, the provision of a school crossing patrol officer, the review and reduction of speed limits, and increased enforcement and monitoring. And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Staffordshire Moorlands, Declares that local people have urgent concerns about the safety of roads around Moorside High School, Werrington Primary School, and residential streets more widely in Werrington; and further declares that high traffic volume, excessive vehicle speeds, unsafe parking, a lack of safe crossing points, and insufficient enforcement and supervision pose a serious risk to the safety and wellbeing of the community, particularly for young people and those with additional needs. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the local authority and relevant agencies to facilitate urgent action including the installation of safe pedestrian crossings, the introduction of stronger parking restrictions, the provision of a school crossing patrol officer, the review and reduction of speed limits, and increased enforcement and monitoring. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003204]
Yesterday we discussed amendments in which we sought to rein in some of the unfettered powers that the Secretary of State is taking for himself in this legislation. Today’s amendments are about trying to rein in the unfettered liability and financial risk that this legislation puts on the taxpayer. For example, amendment 20 would allow the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance if the National Audit Office has concluded that it would secure value for money for taxpayers. The amendment is obviously about making it clear that these powers are not a blank cheque, that they must be constrained, justified and used only when strictly necessary. We cannot have industrial improvisation when the British taxpayer is being asked to pick up the bill. It is not fair that hard-working taxpayers should be forced to pay for a potential failure of Ministers who think they are able to defy the realities of this market. Amendment 22 would cap the amount of financial assistance that could be provided to a steel undertaking to £1 million per worker over a five-year period. It would also fix the employee count at the point that support begins, with “employee” being defined by section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The amendment would ensure that financial assistance is targeted, proportionate and provides value for money. If the Government believe in this intervention, as they clearly do, they should be willing to set limits on it, because without such a cap we are simply asking taxpayers to sign up to an unlimited liability.
I take issue with where the hon. Member is coming from on that, because by putting a sensible and finite limit on the amount per employee—and I will speak later to another amendment where we propose an overall limit—we are talking about the amount that has been set by the Chancellor through the spending review envelope. I do not think she really wants to say to the Committee that there should be completely unlimited budgets for this intervention. She herself would know that in any intervention we ought to go in with a wise idea about what is a reasonable spending limit. Amendments 10 and 11 would increase the frequency with which Parliament is told about the amount that has been spent. Currently, as it is framed in the legislation, the Secretary of State must make a report to Parliament only every 12 months. We are suggesting in these amendments that reports about financial assistance should come every three months. We are talking about substantial and significant sums of public money, so we do not think that annual reporting would be sufficient. Quarterly reporting would ensure that Parliament can properly scrutinise how much money is being spent and how much is being done in closer to real time. It is essential that financial exposure is monitored closely and transparently. We do not want costs to escalate without people being able to notice them, and we want Ministers to remain accountable for public spending.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know the Minister to be an extremely reasonable man, so I am sure he will agree with our amendment. New clause 12 would place a firm cap on the total financial assistance that can be provided under the Bill, limiting it to £2.5 billion. As I am sure the hon. Member for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke (Pamela Nash) and other Members know, that is the limit that has been set for the steel strategy, so to reach that limit would mean that this intervention used up the entire amount allocated to the overall steel strategy. The new clause would set the limit up to a specific date in 2029. As our explanatory statement makes clear, the purpose is simple: to limit the total financial exposure under the Bill. At the moment, the way the Bill is phrased means that it is a completely open-ended financial commitment. We think that a cap of this nature, which would ensure that Ministers had to prioritise their spending decisions rather than continue to inject funds without clear limits or outcomes, is a very sensible thing to do, and I urge everyone to support it.
We are looking at a Bill that the Government’s own impact assessment says might have a bit of a “chilling effect” on inward investment into the sector. We should all want to have inward investment into our economy. If someone who we regard as an excellent owner of this business should come in and make an offer that is attractive to the Government, I absolutely think the Government should be prepared to take that seriously. We do not want this to be a permanent state of affairs; we want it to be a journey to a thriving steel sector, which may well involve investors coming in from overseas.
The hon. Gentleman seems to be conflating two issues. Last year, when the emergency legislation was introduced and Parliament was recalled on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands war, we did not stand in its way, but what we are asking for in the new clause is for Parliament to be kept informed. Let us agree that we all want to be kept informed about how the discussions are going and to find out what the Government are thinking about their exit plan. I made the point yesterday about the public interest test that it is very unclear whether, once the Secretary of State determines that it is in the public interest for this particular site to be owned by the taxpayer, there will ever be the potential for it to change to different state.