Clause 90 - Climate change levy: main rates for 2015-16

Finance Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 10:45 am on 10 June 2014.

Alert me about debates like this

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Photo of Martin Caton Martin Caton Labour, Gower

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clause 91 stand part.

Amendment 25, in clause 92, page 84, line 16, at end insert—

‘(3) The section shall not come into force except as specified in subsection (2) below.

(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall bring the section into force by order within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (3) shall be accompanied by a report which details—

(a) the impact of the provisions in the section on consumers and on fuel poverty;

(b) the impact of the provisions in the section on energy-intensive industries and on employment in those industries;

(c) the level of carbon leakage in the energy-intensive industry as a result of the provisions in this section;

(d) the effect of the provisions in the section on investment in new renewable power generation and on investment in new nuclear power generation;

(e) any effective subsidy provided to, or additional profits accruing to, operators of existing and new nuclear power stations as a result of the provisions in the section;

(f) what additional package of measures will be enacted to mitigate the impact of the section on energy-intensive industries;

(g) the impact on business investment of—

(i) changes to Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 2000 made by Finance Act 2011;

(ii) changes to Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 2000 made by this Act.”

Clauses 92 and 93 stand part.

That schedule 16 be the Sixteenth schedule to the Bill.

Photo of Catherine McKinnell Catherine McKinnell Shadow Minister (Treasury)

Clause 90 is the first of four clauses making provision for the climate change levy. Introduced in 2001, the climate change levy is an environmental tax on energy supplies to industry, commerce, agriculture and public services; it does not apply to domestic energy supplies, businesses that use only a small amount of energy or charities engaged in non-commercial activities. It is aimed at promoting energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy so as to meet the UK’s international obligations under the Kyoto protocol and our domestic targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The climate change levy is made up of two components: the main rates and the carbon price support rates, otherwise known as the carbon price floor. Clause 90 deals with the main rates of CCL, while clauses 91 and 92 deal with the carbon price floor. I have much that I want to say about the climate change levy, specifically in relation to the carbon price floor; I will therefore reserve the majority of my comments for clause 92 and our amendment 25.

All rates of CCL are charged at a specific rate per unit of energy. For the main rate of CCL there are separate rates for electricity, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas and solid fuels. As the explanatory notes point out, since 2007 it has been standard practice for those rates to increase in line with inflation to ensure that the levy maintains its environmental effect. Successive Finance Acts have therefore legislated for the following year’s inflationary increases; clause 91 continues in that vein by uprating the main rates of CCL in line with the retail prices index.

Clause 91 is the first of the clauses that deal with the carbon price support rates of the climate change levy, which is the mechanism that underpins the carbon price floor. As I have mentioned previously, there is quite a lot to discuss on the carbon price support rates. Clause 91 makes provisions for the third of the bands, coal and other taxable solid fuels, reducing the rates previously set for those fuels for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The CPS rates of CPL are legislated for two years in advance, based on a rate per tonne of carbon set that year by the Government. The explanatory note suggests that the purpose of the measure is to correct rates for coal and other solid fuels in the light of incorrect data, the rates having been set too high for 2014-15 and 2015-16. I should be grateful if the Minister elaborated further on that.

Where did the original data that are now deemed inaccurate come from? Have the updated figures come from the same data source? If so, can the Minister reassure Committee members that they are now accurate? Equally, if the CPF rates for the climate change levy for coal and other solid fuels were set too high in 2013-14, presumably electricity generators using such fuels paid a disproportionate amount of tax on their carbon emissions, compared with other types of electricity generators. Can the Minister confirm whether that is so? If so, will she provide further details about how much more, on average, such electricity generators paid in rates for CCL?

Finally, the tax information and impact note accompanying the measures, along with the policy costings document published alongside Budget 2014, referred to the Exchequer impact of all changes and reforms to the carbon price floor—those predominantly provided for in clause 92, which I will come to shortly. It would be helpful if the Minister set out the Exchequer impact, if any, of the measures in this clause. Considering that the carbon price support rates for coal and other solid fossil fuels have been reduced, presumably that will have a negative impact on Exchequer revenue. I should be grateful if the Minister clarified those points, which are not clear from the information that has been provided.

Clause 92 makes provision to reform the coalition Government’s carbon price floor. Before I come to our amendment 25 to clause 92, let me briefly outline the  provisions in the clause and some background to the carbon price floor. The carbon price floor combines two different rates or systems to reach the price per tonne of carbon: the EU emissions trading system and the headline carbon price support rate, a UK-only rate that we covered in the debate on the previous clause. The CPF rate per tonne of carbon provides a top-up to the EU ETS price, so that the cost per tonne of emitted carbon in the UK from the generation of electricity is no less than the rate specified by the carbon price floor.

The coalition Government introduced the carbon price floor, along with the accompanying CPF rates to top-up the cost of carbon, in April 2013. The overall CPF rate was set at £4.94 per tonne of carbon in its first year. This year it is set at £9.55 per tonne of carbon, rising to £18.08 per tonne of carbon for 2015-16.

Photo of Nicholas Dakin Nicholas Dakin Opposition Whip (Commons)

Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that the Government did not do their homework at that time to check how to ensure mitigation for high-energy users through the EU before rushing in with these carbon floor taxes?

Photo of Catherine McKinnell Catherine McKinnell Shadow Minister (Treasury)

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He anticipates many points that I will make. He and I were not the only ones who were surprised; a wide variety of interested parties, including Ministers, were surprised, feeling that the tax was ill thought through. The explanatory notes on the clause set out the Government’s reasoning for the cap:

“Since the CPF was introduced the EU ETS carbon prices have fallen, meaning the gap between UK energy prices and energy prices abroad has grown and would continue to do so if the original CPF trajectory was maintained. The introduction of a cap on the UK-only element of the CPF is intended to limit the disparity between UK and non-UK energy costs.”

The Opposition made an observation on that when the carbon price floor was debated in the Finance Bill Committee in 2011, and that observation remains a key focus of our amendment 25. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), in her role as shadow Economic Secretary at the time, made a number of observations in that year’s Finance Bill Committee, most of which, unfortunately—I genuinely mean that—appear to have finally been realised by this Government.

The Opposition moved an amendment to the Finance Bill in 2011 that sought a Government review of the impact of the carbon price floor on, in particular: energy bills and fuel poverty; manufacturing, heavy industry and employment in those industries; business investment; and investment in renewables. At the time, my hon. Friend pointed out that the carbon price floor would not do what Ministers promised, that manufacturing would be hit as a result and that we might not even reduce carbon emissions by a single tonne. None the less, the Government voted down the amendment, dismissed the Opposition’s concerns and labelled our amendment as unnecessary; yet three years later the Government are now having to U-turn on their original policy after acknowledging its damaging impact on Britain’s businesses and the worrying prospects for the future. Amendment 25 calls on the Government to conduct the review that they previously dismissed as unnecessary. Indeed, it builds on the amendment we moved in last year’s Finance Bill Committee, which called on the Government to review the impact of the carbon price floor on their emissions reduction commitments.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe, I have mentioned that it was not only Opposition Front Benchers who were raising those concerns. Our voice was one in a growing chorus calling on the Government at the very least to take stock of the carbon price floor and its impact on businesses, consumers and the green industry. Carbon market specialists have held the CPF up as one of the best examples of carbon leakage. Experts from the Institute for Public Policy Research labelled it

“not a green tax, it’s just a tax on business and households.”

Even Greenpeace spokespeople lamented the carbon price floor for giving green taxes “a bad name.”

The Chancellor and his colleagues may also be aware that criticisms of the carbon price floor have been heard much closer to home. For example, The Daily Telegraph reported that the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), before becoming Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, thought the policy was ineffective, labelling it

“a fairly absurd waste of your money”.

He made those comments to a Telegraph reporter when he mistakenly thought that the policy had been inherited from the previous Labour Government. More recently, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has expressed his doubt about the carbon price floor. According to a Reuters report, he told an industry event in January hosted by Tata Steel:

“Energy-intensive industry has got special problems arising from British energy costs. The carbon price floor is pricing in a disadvantage to UK producers.”

Perhaps a result of those concerns is that the Government have finally chosen to act and make some welcome changes in this year’s Budget.

One of the Opposition’s key concerns about the carbon price floor is how it will affect, and has affected, British industry. The Chancellor told the House in his 2011 autumn statement:

“We are not going to save the planet by shutting down our steel mills, aluminium smelters and paper manufacturers. All we will be doing is exporting valuable jobs from this country”.—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 807.]

We wholeheartedly share those concerns. Indeed, the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change pointed out that that is exactly what the carbon price floor would do.

Photo of Charlie Elphicke Charlie Elphicke Conservative, Dover

Does that not make the case for carbon-free nuclear power ever stronger? Why did Labour not build any of those power stations?

Photo of Catherine McKinnell Catherine McKinnell Shadow Minister (Treasury)

It is outside the scope of this clause to get into a much wider debate about the energy mix we need in this country, although we have had that debate in relation to previous clauses. It is important not to brush over the key issues in relation to carbon price support. Indeed, our amendment calls on the Government to put proper thought into how they approach the matter. We called for such thought in 2011, 2012 and 2013, and here we are again, calling for proper consideration to be given to our industry. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has an interest in these issues, but I do not think they are particularly relevant to the clause.

In the 2011 autumn statement the Chancellor promised a £250 million compensation package for some energy-intensive industries, yet Ministers have recently confirmed to me in a written answer that so far no businesses have been compensated for the indirect costs of the carbon price floor, due to the scheme still requiring state aid clearance. I see that we do not have many swivel-eyed Members on the Government Benches today—most seem to be yawning, rather than eye-swivelling.

Photo of Catherine McKinnell Catherine McKinnell Shadow Minister (Treasury)

Oh, the hon. Gentleman is here.

Photo of Nicholas Dakin Nicholas Dakin Opposition Whip (Commons)

Not only have energy-intensive industries not received a penny of compensation for the carbon floor price; the Government cannot guarantee—although they are trying their best—that any compensation or mitigation that is forthcoming will be backdated to April 2013, when the costs began for our local businesses, which are competing in a very competitive market.

Photo of Catherine McKinnell Catherine McKinnell Shadow Minister (Treasury)

Indeed. Given the importance of the issue to so many businesses up and down the country, the responses that we are getting are quite disturbing. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks, has repeatedly stated that he is “hopeful” that state aid clearance for the carbon price floor compensation scheme will be received “soon”. Indeed, he has been “hopeful” since as long ago as February, so can this Minister now confirm with greater certainty, which so many businesses desperately need, when exactly energy-intensive industries can expect to see their long-awaited compensation for the carbon price floor?

Also, the Minister of State has indicated in answer to parliamentary questions that even when the UK does receive state aid clearance—this point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe—that will not include clearance for backdated payments, so I would be grateful if this Minister confirmed whether the UK Government will continue to seek approval for that from the European Commission, and provide reassurance to affected businesses, which have been promised support but so far have not received any.

The Opposition have made it clear since the carbon price floor’s inception that any action to tackle carbon emissions must be taken at European level, not through the UK acting alone. Indeed, that is also the view of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, which in a 2012 report says that only an EU-wide price for carbon emissions can be the way forward, pointing out that the UK acting on its own will have no impact on carbon emissions. This year’s Budget document suggests that the Government now agree with that view, emphasising the need to reform and strengthen the EU ETS.

I put similar questions to the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury in last year’s Finance Bill Committee, but I think that it is worth putting them again, as there may have been some development in the Government’s thinking. In the light of the view set out in the Budget document, can the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to secure the necessary reforms  of the EU ETS? What conversations are she or other Ministers having with European Energy Ministers to strengthen the EU ETS? Can the Minister enlighten Committee members on how exactly the UK Government feel that the EU ETS can be reformed and strengthened to enable it effectively to reduce carbon emissions at European level, as opposed to action taken by the UK only? Does the Minister have any estimates of what the price of carbon under the EU ETS might look like around 2020? In other words, does she predict that the price of carbon will increase significantly under the EU ETS up to 2020, or does the UK Government anticipate that the EU ETS price will remain broadly where it is at present? Presumably those kinds of assessment are being undertaken by the Government and, obviously, long-term certainty for businesses affected by these prices is crucial for confidence to invest.

The Opposition’s amendment 25 also calls on the Government to review the impact that the carbon price floor has had on energy bills and, by extension, consumers and the number of households pushed into fuel poverty as a result of the measures. That was another concern that was raised by the Opposition back in 2011 and dismissed at the time. The then shadow Economic Secretary highlighted the Government’s own estimates, which suggested that between 30,000 and 60,000 more households would fall into fuel poverty in 2013, rising to between 50,000 and 90,000 more households by 2020, as a direct result of the carbon price floor.

Official fuel poverty figures are only as recent as 2011. Under the original fuel poverty definition, 4.5 million households were in fuel poverty in that year. However, the latest report from the Energy Bill Revolution estimates that that figure rose to 5.8 million in 2013 and that currently 6.6 million households are in fuel poverty. That is almost 2 million more households in fuel poverty in three years—a rise of 49%. Most worrying of all, 1.4 million of those households are families with children.

Clearly, a range of factors lie behind the rise, not least a £300 increase in energy bills for households since 2010, but it is critical for the Government to understand what impact their own policies, such as the carbon price floor, have had on energy prices and fuel poverty. Will the Minister confirm to the Committee what estimates the Government have made of the number of households pushed into fuel poverty as a result of the carbon price floor?

I recently visited an energy-intensive company in the north-east, on Teesside, where one of the largest integrated process industry clusters in Europe is located. I came away from that visit with some clear messages, reflective of the wider energy-intensive industries in the UK. First, the coalition Government’s lack of clarity and long-term certainty on energy policy has been particularly damaging for business investment. Secondly, certain industries, such as those on Teesside, by the very nature of their work and their industry will remain heavily reliant on less clean fuels. Such industries need heat, often on substantial scales, but those issues seem to have been overlooked by the coalition Government when formulating policies such as the carbon price floor.

It is welcome that the Government recognised in the recent Budget that the utilisation of combined heat and power systems—now used by many in the energy-intensive  industries—is effective in terms of cost and carbon reduction. The Budget announcement that fuels used to generate good-quality electricity by CHP plants for on-site purposes will be exempt from the carbon price floor is welcome, although the exemption will not be acted upon until April 2015.

None the less, Opposition amendment 25 calls on the Government to conduct a thorough review of the impact of their carbon price floor across a range of different areas. The Opposition expressed a number of concerns in 2011, with the first legislation, but the Government dismissed them at the time. Now, unfortunately, they appear to have been realised. I urge all Committee members, who I know take the issue seriously and care a lot about the affected businesses, to support our amendment. The exercise that we are calling for would give better understanding of what changes can now be made to put consumers, businesses and Britain in a much stronger position on energy policy.

The finalised measures in clause 93 and the schedule to it, following a consultation last year and a second one as part of the published draft Finance Bill, and according to my understanding of the tax information and impact note, differ from the earlier proposals in two ways. First, there is guidance on the impact of the new exemptions on those businesses or industries that are signed up either to the climate change agreement or to the carbon reduction commitment schemes, for example, but what happens to businesses that are no longer required to sign up to such schemes as a result of becoming wholly or partly exempt from the climate change levy?

Secondly, there are minor changes to the scope of the metallurgical and mineralogical exemptions, most notably the addition of sheet metal pressing as an eligible metallurgical process. The measures, however, appear to be the result of concerns that the climate change levy, as it previously applied to those sectors—both energy-intensive industries—significantly harmed their international competitiveness. Indeed, the tax information and impact note appears to bear that out. When the exemptions were first announced in Budget 2013, British Glass welcomed the changes, pointing out the competitive disadvantage to the granite, cement and glass sectors as a result of the climate change levy.

We have already discussed at great length under clause 92 the impacts of the climate change levy on British industry, and I do not seek to replay them in relation to clause 93. It would be helpful, however, for the Minister to respond to a few outstanding queries. Considering that the tax information and impact note suggests that the measures will bring UK tax treatment for metallurgical and mineralogical industrial processes in line with those throughout Europe, will the Minister outline how many other EU countries already have such measures in place? Will the Minister set out how long such exemptions have been in place in other parts of Europe, and why? If the EU legislation allowed for such exemptions, why are the Government only now implementing them?

Has the Minister made any assessment of the impact of the competition distortions, as outlined in the tax information and impact note, on British businesses involved in metallurgical and mineralogical processes? It is, of course, welcome that the UK Government are now providing for the exemptions. The tax information and impact note merely states that these measures will

“improve the international competitiveness of firms in the metallurgical and mineralogical sectors”.

However, I am interested to hear what estimate, if any, the Government have made of the average financial benefit to affected industries as a result of these exemptions. Presumably, that work has been done and it would be useful for the Committee to hear the Government’s thinking.

Photo of Nicholas Dakin Nicholas Dakin Opposition Whip (Commons)

I have to speak on this issue because of the direct impact of the carbon floor price on steel, the major industry in my constituency. The provisions are welcome moves in the right direction, as my hon. Friend outlined. The real issue is that none of us wants this to be too little, too late. That is the danger of where we lie with this self-inflicted wound by the coalition Government in relation to the carbon floor tax. They unilaterally introduced it without doing the proper homework on putting appropriate mitigations in place through the European Union.

It is amazing that the Government managed to come up with a tax that united the green lobby—Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and others—and foundation industries such as glass, steel and chemicals in saying that this was a poor tax. To have achieved that is a work of genius. The tax is flawed at its kernel. We now have an attempt to row back that does not do anything, in the Government’s prospect, until April 2016 when a freeze will be put in place.

There is a danger of the rhetoric around this sounding as though it is doing something when it actually does nothing at all. Foundation industries need action now to ensure that they can continue to play their important role in the country’s wealth creation. As my hon. Friend indicated, we have international investors, often based outside the UK, such as Tata, making decisions about investment in our industries. The uncompetitive nature of energy prices is one of those marginal issues that, if not tackled, can make the difference between investing and not investing. That would not be good for anybody.

The other irony is that, as the Chancellor observed, if UK industry is made uncompetitive through self-inflicted wounds, all that happens is that carbon leakage is exported elsewhere. Places such as Ukraine end up as the steelmakers and release far more carbon into the environment than our highly efficient plants do at the moment. That has all the ingredients of the economics of the madhouse.

Photo of Christopher Pincher Christopher Pincher Conservative, Tamworth

I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point about carbon leakage. Is he therefore suggesting that it would be politic for the Government to switch from measuring carbon emissions by production to measuring them by consumption?

Photo of Nicholas Dakin Nicholas Dakin Opposition Whip (Commons)

That is a technical area that the Government need to look at. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point in raising how the measures are achieved. That also illustrates that it is an area where we must have global agreement to take it forward. That means that sometimes steps are slower than they need to be to address the massive challenge of climate change.

Karl-Ulrich Köhler, chief executive of Tata Steel Europe, commented after the Finance Act 2011 introduced the carbon floor tax. His analysis is that energy bills for  foundation industry businesses in the UK are 50% higher than for equivalent businesses elsewhere—he runs equivalent businesses in France, Germany and the Netherlands, so he has illustrative data from his own business portfolio. In essence, that is the equivalent of an extra £5 per tonne of steel manufactured in the UK, compared with elsewhere in Europe, which equates to about 2,000 jobs, if labour costs must be reduced to manage the energy margin of difference. Therefore, it is significant to UK foundation industries.

I welcome the fact that the Business Secretary and others have committed to putting their shoulders to the wheel to ensure that our foundation industries can perform. In April 2014, I asked the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks—an excellent Minister who strives to do his very best—to ensure the mitigation for the carbon floor price that the Government are striving to get through Europe is backdated to April 2013. He said he would do his best, but he could not guarantee it. That is not good enough. Our foundation industries deserve the support that Members of all parties promise in their rhetoric. Those industries need more than rhetoric; they need action.

My worry is that the coalition Government, with their self-inflicted wound of the carbon floor tax—they can blame nobody else for it—cannot box themselves out of their corner. They ought to be doing something now; 2016 is better than nothing, but they may not be in government in 2016. That is a long way away for the people toiling in the steel, glass and chemicals industries who create this country’s wealth. We need those people for the future.

I know we set up review after review, but I welcome the tenor of amendment 25, which aims to keep this under wraps. We should try to do whatever we can to drive this issue forward by reviewing the impact on leakage of jobs in the UK. None of us wants what we fear might happen if we do not act appropriately and urgently.

Photo of Chris Heaton-Harris Chris Heaton-Harris Conservative, Daventry 11:15, 10 June 2014

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I want to follow on from the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I have been monitoring energy costs in the United Kingdom for a long time, and I am fascinated by the various carbon taxes, including the carbon floor price, and by the way Tata Steel goes about its business. It is a remarkably fluid global enterprise that can choose where it goes in the global market.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Karl-Ulrich Köhler, the chief executive of Tata Steel Europe, and I have a quote of his that I carry around as a reminder. After Tata Steel announced a number of redundancies in its Port Talbot works, he said:

“European steel demand this year is expected to be only two-thirds of pre-crisis levels after falls in the last two years”— he is talking about the problem with the economy. He continued:

“On top of the challenging economic conditions, rules covering energy and the environment in Europe and the UK threaten to impose huge additional costs.”

The dilemma for him personally and for us all is that nearly all parties are committed to decarbonising the economy. The carbon floor prices and the carbon taxes  associated with them are one of the methods for doing that. However, the consequence of doing that does not look good for energy-intensive users.

I do not see the point in a review. Our direction of travel seems perfectly logical, and I think people are beginning to recognise the issue now. There needs to be a more sensible conversation. If we want to retain a strong and well-founded—forgive the pun—steel industry in this country, as well as all the other heavy industry companies that use lots and lots of energy and employ thousands upon thousands of people across the midlands and across the country, we need to have a very sensible conversation about energy provision, carbon floor prices and carbon levies.

Photo of Ian Swales Ian Swales Liberal Democrat, Redcar

I feel I ought to rise to say a few words since my constituency is heavily affected by the debate we are having now. It is mainly my constituency that the shadow Minister was referring to regarding her visit to Teesside. In my constituency, we have a huge steel industry. We have Tata, SSI—a Thai company—and the UK’s biggest chemical site, so I see the issues writ very large. In addition to all the points already made, all of which I agree with, we need to talk about complexity.

Businesses in my constituency talk about having seven different forms of taxation or measures regarding the energy that they use. Merely navigating that minefield is one of the problems that they speak about. They have issues, not to do with this House, but regarding changes taking place in Europe around reductions in the emissions trading system, which are beating on them, but obviously beating on other industries around Europe. It is vital that we keep a close eye on this and make sure that  UK-based industries are not at a disadvantage. We must not believe all the headline energy prices that are published, because, as Tata and others know, the prices they pay are not always the ones that seem to be in the press.

I know the Energy Minister was quite shocked when he visited Germany, and it affected his view when he found out what the real market was for industrial energy in Germany, as opposed to the average prices that we might see published in the press. For example, industry in Germany pays far lower prices than domestic consumers pay, so that area definitely needs to be under review. The Government need to take a wider view of their income stream, because one thing that has not been mentioned is that for all the taxes they get from energy, there are also lots of taxes from employment, from businesses, and from profits and so on, and if we drive businesses out of this country, they clearly will be lost.

Finally, energy-intensive industries have a vested interest in reducing energy costs. They already pay a lot for their energy. They are being beaten with five or six sticks already. There is a limit to how many sticks they need to be beaten with before they look at how much energy they use and how much carbon they generate. Many industries, such as ammonium nitrate manufacturers, are inherently energy intensive. There is nothing we can do—it is all about chemistry and physics—so we need to make sure that the Government show that they welcome such businesses and put policies in place to ensure that they stay here and thrive.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(AmberRudd.)

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.