Saturday 12th April 2025
(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberSteel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 94-I Marshalled list for Committee - (12 Apr 2025)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2024-26 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To move that this House takes note of His Majesty’s Government’s legislative proposals to ensure the continued operation of the steel industry in the light of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, the House has reconvened under exceptional circumstances, which merit an exceptional response from the Government. Our request to recall Parliament was not made lightly, and I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House for being here today as the Government seek to pass this emergency legislation.
This legislation allows the Government to take control of British Steel’s blast furnaces, maintaining steel production and, by extension, protecting the company’s 3,500-strong workforce. I reassure noble Lords that, given the exceptional nature of a recall, the Government thought it better to limit the powers in the Bill—which are still significant—rather than introduce more complex matters of property rights and public ownership at the same time. This is not about nationalisation. We are keeping all options under review, and we will of course return to Parliament for further scrutiny should the need arise.
As noble Lords will know, since taking office, the Government have been negotiating in good faith with British Steel’s owners, Jingye. We have sought to prevent the early closure of the two blast furnaces at the company’s Scunthorpe site, which Jingye has claimed are no longer financially viable. We have worked tirelessly to find a way forward, making a generous offer of support to British Steel with sensible, common-sense conditions to protect the workforce and UK taxpayers, and to create a commercially viable company for the future. Jingye’s refusal to accept the deal on the table, and to accelerate the closure of the blast furnaces at Scunthorpe, has left us no other choice: we must now take control of the company’s blast furnaces.
Let there be no doubt: this Government will never hesitate to take action to protect this nation’s assets. We will not abandon the hard-working steel-making communities that have given so much to both our economy and country. Where vital industries are on the verge of collapse or where communities face devastation, we will always act in the national interest.
We do not accept the argument that steel-making has no future in the UK. As the Prime Minister asserted yesterday, our plan for change means that domestic demand for steel is set only to go up, not down. In the last few weeks alone, we have seen Heathrow Airport announce multi-billion-pound expansion plans requiring 400,000 tonnes of new steel. We have seen Universal Studios confirm that it will build Europe’s biggest theme park, and, where possible, it will use UK-made steel to make it. We need British steel for this and our critical infrastructure projects, from rail to renewable energy. We need it to keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad.
The legislation we are setting out today will also help end the uncertainty that has been hanging over British Steel’s Scunthorpe site for far too long. We know that rebuilding our steel industry brings its fair share of challenges, but we believe that they are worth facing and that we are more than prepared to overcome them. It is why we agreed a new deal with better protections for workers at Port Talbot within weeks of taking office, which will transform production and deliver a modern electric arc furnace. It is why we have delivered measures as part of the British industry supercharger to cut electricity costs for steel firms and bring prices more in line with international competitors.
It is why we have simplified public procurement, aligning it with our industrial strategy, which is putting UK firms, including those in the steel industry, in the best possible position to bid for and win public contracts. It is why we launched a consultation on our steel strategy as part of an effort to work with industry on overcoming difficult issues, such as high electricity costs and unfair trading practices, so that we can protect the UK’s industrial heartlands.
It is why we have taken the decision today to safeguard British Steel. Britain is a steel-making country. Steel-making has been fundamental to Britain’s industrial strength, security and identity as a global power. Today’s legislation will help ensure that we can retain that steel-making capability here in the UK, both now and for many years to come, and I urge the House to support it. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords not just for participating in this debate but for returning to this place in these exceptional circumstances. Before I respond to the comments that have been made, I reiterate the points made by the Prime Minister yesterday and by the Business Secretary in the other place today: the Government have always said from the outset of their negotiations with Jingye that we would keep every option on the table and act in the national interest to protect British jobs.
UK-forged steel built our railways, bridges and buildings. It is an integral part of our economic future, as it has been in our industrial past. That is why we need to pass this legislation today. I am therefore grateful to my noble friends Lord Reid, Lord Tunnicliffe, Lord West, Lady Drake, Lord Glasman and Lord Hanworth, and to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer for reminding us how fundamental steel is to our infrastructure and our future economic growth plans. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, and my noble friend Lady Ramsey, who reminded us of the human cost of the potential closure of the Scunthorpe site. We reiterate our commitment to protecting jobs and communities impacted by that potential closure.
The noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Moylan, complained about the urgency with which we have had to rush this legislation through. I think they do not appreciate the urgency of the situation we find ourselves in. Those blast furnaces were in danger of failing within days. That is why we are here today and why this action was so necessary. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I am not inclined to take lessons from the party opposite, given their record over the previous 14 years. In her year and a half as the Business and Trade Secretary, Kemi Badenoch met UK steel companies on just three occasions. On the party opposite’s watch, UK steel production plummeted by 4 million metric tonnes between 2010 and 2023—an eye-watering fall of 42% in manufacturing. The UK went from the 17th largest steel producer in the world to the 26th largest over that period. The economic output of UK steel halved to £2.3 billion in that time. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, heralded the use of coal and the opportunities that it would provide. I must remind him that it was his party that closed the coal mines and made us reliant on imported coal in the first place.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked if we would apologise. The Government will not apologise for acting in the national interest. As my right honourable friend said in the other place, this issue should have been resolved years ago. The situation we inherited across the board on assuming office is one in which most of our foundation industries found themselves in difficulty. Since 2010, UK crude steel production has almost halved. We know that rebuilding our steel industry after years of neglect will be a challenge, but it is one that this Government have grasped and it is why today, where others have shied, we have stepped up to take action.
I move on to some of the points that have been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about the legal advice from the Attorney-General. It is the Government’s policy not to discuss advice provided to the Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about Teesside. Ultimately, British Steel has been responsible for commercial decisions regarding its location strategy. The Government were right to prioritise protecting as many jobs as possible during those negotiations, but it is not right to force job losses in Scunthorpe to benefit Teesside. However, of course we want to do the best we can by Teesside communities, so the Government are continuing to work with the Tees Valley Combined Authority and local partners on regional investment and growth opportunities.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about international law and our obligations. I can assure him that everything we do is in compliance with our international law obligations under the WTO, the GATT framework and international law more generally. I reassure him that we are entirely satisfied that these short-term powers are within the terms of our international law obligations.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and others asked whether compensation would be paid. We need compensation provision within the Bill to preserve the investment climate and to comply with international standards, but the chances of compensation being recovered are slim because the powers are there to protect the company’s assets, not to damage them. Compensation would also have to be done via an SI, which would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the negative resolution.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also asked whether the Bill’s powers were overreaching for the Secretary of State. The powers are linked to what a relevant person could have done. Basically, they are to do anything that management is empowered to do, so they are there within those confines.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Laing, and other noble Lords asked about the sunset clause. Because of the speed at which the legislation has been drafted and the uncertainty of the situation, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to set a timeline for these specific interventions. The current international situation is unpredictable, so a fixed sunset clause would not be workable or acceptable, as we might have to come back to Parliament and do it all again. We can, of course, revoke directions at any time in relation to a particular steel company once the need for intervention has passed. We would welcome working with the Business and Trade Select Committee to make sure we work with Members and keep them updated so that these powers are not in place any longer than is absolutely necessary. We understand the concern of the House about the use of these powers, and it is right that Parliament closely monitors this. We will be updating the House every four weeks on the use of these powers.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for those words. What this House seeks, rather than an update, is the opportunity to invoke these powers in a way that they appear to be intended. They have been called emergency powers, and the Minister has called them short-term powers. Will the Government, within six months of this Bill coming into force, commit to having a substantive debate, in both Houses, to determine whether the Act will continue and to acting on any resolution of the House of Commons on the further continuation of those powers?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I have been here on a number of occasions answering questions on the situation with steel. In the future, we will continue to engage as widely as we have done to make sure that Parliament is updated on these matters. As I have said, we will update the House every four sitting weeks on the use of these powers. I honestly think that, in these circumstances, that is sufficient.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
The Business and Trade Select Committee, which the Minister just spoke of, is a House of Commons committee. Within our own House, we have the Industry and Regulators Committee. Are the Government proposing that they would offer the same service, as it were, to our committee as well?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for raising that question. I am sure that we would be happy to consult with the relevant committees within your Lordships’ House as well.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the cost of providing these safeguards. We are directing British Steel to act in a way that safeguards its assets, and this funding should be provided by the company. If the Government need to spend money, we will look to recover that from the company if we can and where reasonable. We have committed up to £2.5 billion for steel, via the National Wealth Fund and other routes, and no further government borrowing is envisaged to support any intervention. The alternative would be importing steel at considerable extra cost to our economy. As noble Lords have pointed out, we would then be the only country in the G20 without domestic steel production. There is a cost either way, and we must balance those costs when we make decisions going forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, asked what was happening in Port Talbot and whether we are nationalising British Steel in response to this situation. As I made clear in my opening comments, we are not nationalising anything. We have put forward a Bill to ensure the continued safe operation of the blast furnaces. Without swift intervention, there was a risk of accelerated closure, jeopardising the safety and production outcomes of British Steel.
Tata Steel decided to close the blast furnaces at Port Talbot in January 2024 under the previous Government, and the decision to provide a grant agreement towards Port Talbot’s transition project was made by the previous Government. This transition was already well under way by the time we came into office. This is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made. However, I say to the House that we negotiated an improved deal with Tata, after just 10 weeks in office, with better terms for workers, future investment opportunities for the area and the highest voluntary redundancy package Tata has ever offered. Since then, we have provided more than £50 million directly to the local community, from the £80 million available from the UK Government to help people learn new skills, to support the supply chain and to protect people’s mental health.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others asked about the endgame for British Steel. Our long-term aspiration for British Steel remains a co-investment agreement with a private sector partner to secure a long-term transformation. We are determined to see a bright and profitable future for steel-making in this country.
A number of noble Lords asked about energy prices and the cost of energy. The Government are committed to tackling high industrial prices in the UK. The British industry supercharger package of measures for energy-intensive industries came into force in April 2024 and brings energy costs for strategically important UK industries, including steel, closer in line with other major economies around the world, so that they remain competitive on the world stage. Once fully implemented in April 2025, the measures will save eligible businesses on average £24 to £31 per megawatt hour on their electricity costs. The total value of reduced electricity prices is estimated to be between £320 million and £410 million in 2025 and around £5.1 billion over 10 years. This will help keep business energy costs down.
To reiterate the point about future scrutiny of the implementation of the Bill, as the Secretary of State said in the other place, we are happy to engage with relevant committees, and I am happy to keep the House updated on these matters. We will continue to update the House every four sitting weeks on the use of these powers.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Can I just say to the Minister how grateful we are that she understands the House’s concern about the use of these powers? As I understand it, she has told the House that she will return every four weeks to update the House on the use of the powers. However, she was intervened on by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to suggest that she might go a little further than that and have a clear debate after six months. I still think that this whole question of a sunset clause is very relevant indeed. Can the Minister expand on what she said earlier—that she believes that a fixed sunset clause would not be workable or acceptable? Why not? It is generally accepted in this House that powers of this nature should have a sunset clause. Can she perhaps expand on that and give a little more detail before we consider whether to table such an amendment?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thought I had answered that point. The Bill, as it stands here, is to deal with one emergency. As we know, it is a volatile sector and we might need to use those powers at other times. We will use them judiciously and with care, and, as I keep saying, we will continue to update the House as to the use of those powers. We do not feel that a sunset clause is necessary or desirable in this Bill. To clarify, my general comment to the noble Lord was that we would continue to engage with the Lords committees to make sure that they are fully updated with progress going forward.
In concluding this debate, I convey my thanks to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and for helping us to pass this legislation so that we can retain steel-making capacity in the UK—for British workers’ security, for British industry’s future and for the future of British Steel workers and their families. That is our priority and that is how we intend to go forward.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
The Minister did not respond to my specific question about ensuring that the amount of any compensation paid under the terms of the Bill would be absolutely clear and stated to the public and to Parliament.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a reasonable point. I am sure that we can accommodate that and make sure that that information is available.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Can I just point out to the Minister that I asked a number a questions that she has not answered? Will she look at the record and write to me?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I apologise to the noble Lord—he was speaking more quickly than I can write. I will endeavour to respond to the points that I have not been able to respond to so far.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Before the Minister sits down again, I made a specific point about whether nationalisation was one of the options on the table under review.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I make it clear that nothing is off the table. All options will be considered. I have also made it clear that this Bill is not about nationalising steel. If we need to take any further steps, we will obviously have to come back to the House with further proposals.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
What opportunity will this House have to reflect on the Bill?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Obviously, we have had a full debate today. As I said, we will come back regularly to report on progress to the House, including to the relevant committees of the House, so there will be plenty of opportunities to measure the implementation of the Bill as we go forward.
Motion agreed.
Saturday 12th April 2025
(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberSteel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 94-I Marshalled list for Committee - (12 Apr 2025)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2024-26 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We meet in exceptional circumstances to take exceptional action in what are exceptional times. Our request to recall Parliament was not one we made lightly. I am genuinely grateful to hon. Members in all parts of the House for their co-operation, and for being here today as we seek to pass emergency legislation that is unequivocally in our national interest. I thank in particular the staff in Parliament for facilitating today’s sitting, and the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Home Secretary for their support. Indeed, we can take this action today only because of the restoration of economic stability and the dedicated resources for steel in the last Budget. I acknowledge my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and all my hon. Friends from Teesside for their advocacy and engagement on this matter, throughout, on behalf of their constituents.
As hon, Members will know, since taking office, the Government have been negotiating in good faith with British Steel’s owner, Jingye. We have worked tirelessly to find a way forward, making a generous offer of support to British Steel that included sensible, common-sense conditions to protect the workforce, protect taxpayers’ money, and create a commercially viable company for the future. Despite our offer to Jingye being substantial, it wanted much more—an excessive amount, frankly. However, we remained committed to negotiation, but over the past few days, it has become clear that the intention of Jingye was to refuse to purchase sufficient raw materials to keep the blast furnaces running. In fact, its intention was to cancel and refuse to pay for existing orders. The company would therefore have irrevocably and unilaterally closed down primary steelmaking at British Steel.
I want to make it absolutely clear that, separately from any conversation about a possible deal to co-invest in new infrastructure, the British Government offered to purchase the raw materials in a way that would have ensured no losses whatsoever for Jingye in maintaining the blast furnaces for a period of time. A counter-offer was instead made by Jingye: that we transfer hundreds of millions of pounds to it, without any conditions to prevent that money, and potentially other assets, being immediately transferred to China. Jingye also refused the condition of keeping the blast furnaces maintained and in good working order.
Even if I had agreed to those terms, I could not guarantee that further requests for money would not then be made. In that situation, with the clock being run down, doing nothing was not an option. We could not, will not and never will stand idly by while the heat seeps from the UK’s remaining blast furnaces, without any planning, due process or respect for the consequences. That is why I needed colleagues here today.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
From what the Secretary of State has described, it is beginning to sound as though Jingye is trying to manoeuvre the Government into a recompensed nationalisation. Will he make it plain that if it tries to manoeuvre us into nationalisation, we will pay not more than a penny for the business?
Jonathan Reynolds
To be clear, where there is a transfer of ownership to the state, we would always pay the fair market value for the assets. In this case, the market value is effectively zero, so I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point entirely. I would say that the intention of Jingye has not been to engineer that situation; its intention has been to keep the downstream mills, which colleagues will know are fundamental to our construction and steel industries, and supply them from China, rather than from Scunthorpe; that is the situation.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Is it now the view of the Government that primary steel production in the United Kingdom is an overriding national security issue?
Jonathan Reynolds
As the right hon. Gentleman will know—we have had this exchange at the Dispatch Box before—I believe that the capacity for primary steel production is important. The steel strategy looks at new ways of ensuring that, and at not just protecting the past, but at what the future may bring. Direct reduced iron technology is of significant potential interest to us for the future. However, this situation—involving the last remaining blast furnaces, and the proposition put to us—is exceptional and unique, and I need all colleagues to recognise that.
The legislation ahead of us today is therefore a proportionate and necessary step. It allows us to take control of British Steel’s blast furnaces, maintaining steel production and, by extension, protecting the company’s 3,500-strong workforce. The Bill does not transfer ownership to the Government. We will have to deal with that matter at a later date. I took the decision that given the exceptional nature of a recall, it would be better to limit the powers in the Bill, which are still significant, rather than introduce more complex matters of property rights and public ownership at this time.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
The Secretary of State is taking extremely extensive powers for the Government, and they apply to what he describes in the Bill as “specified assets”. As far as I can see, they are not limited to blast furnaces or assets required for making virgin steel. Does he accept that he is leaving two hands on the tiller, when it comes to the operation of all the steelmaking companies to which the Bill may apply? In other words, he is saying that the Government can direct a company in relation to specified assets, but that company can do other things of its own initiative. Does he recognise that he is creating considerable legal complexity in the operation of those companies going forward? Why is that the right approach?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his thoughtful question. The fundamental purpose of the Bill is to allow me, as Secretary of State, and this Government to take control of this situation. The reason why this is the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill, and not a Bill specific to British Steel, is, as he will know, that the latter would be a hybrid Bill, and introducing that would be a far more complex procedure. With the clock being run down, that was not an available option.
The Bill broadly replicates the situation that would apply if the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 had been triggered, but rather than seeking to meet the threshold to trigger that Act, I am seeking parliamentary permission—the consent of this House and the other place—to take control, which I think is a better way forward. I want to make it clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to the House that I want this to be a temporary position—I do not want these powers a minute longer than is necessary—but I need the powers to rectify and save the situation.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Given that the Secretary of State has inferred that the owner, Jingye, is not and has not acted in good faith, surely the right thing to do is to seize this great opportunity now, this weekend, and nationalise British Steel?
Jonathan Reynolds
A transfer of ownership to the state remains on the table. It may well, at this stage, given the behaviour of the company, be the likely option. However, our aspirations for British Steel remain a co-investment agreement with a private sector partner to secure a long-term transformation. The action I seek to take today is not a magic wand or a panacea. The state cannot fund the long-term transformation of British Steel, nor would it want to, but a failure to act today would prevent any more desirable outcome from even being considered, and that, again, is why we must act today.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I applaud my right hon. Friend for his decisive action in this matter. I have only had a chance to read the Bill for 10 minutes—[Interruption.] That is not a criticism; it is the natural procedure of this House. The Bill could not be laid until First Reading. The Bill talks about compensation. He has made the point that he is not planning to take over and run British Steel, which is not the desirable option, but has he done some sort of impact assessment on the potential range of costs to the taxpayer in these circumstances?
Jonathan Reynolds
I think my hon. Friend refers to clause 7, which deals with compensation. Again, let me be clear: this is a clause that we would put in any Bill. We are not Russia, and we do not sequester assets. The language in the clause—the legal definition—is something that we would use in most standard procedures. Going back to the question from the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), the effective market value of Jingye is zero, so there is no inconsistency between those two points.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
What is happening today is something that mining communities like Swadlincote, in my constituency of South Derbyshire, will be feeling deeply in their souls. It is something that they could have only dreamed of back in the 1980s, when they wanted a Government who had their backs and prioritised the national interest. Instead, they had a Conservative Government who sold them down the river. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a pivotal moment in our history, because we have a Labour Government prioritising our people and the national interest?
Jonathan Reynolds
This is a significant moment. How a country handles economic transitions is not about nostalgia for the past—we have to embrace the future—but how we help our people, our industry and our nation get to that point is key. My hon. Friend and I come from similar places, and we have not managed these transitions particularly well in the past. We are meeting this weekend to discuss the potential loss of thousands of jobs, which is what was on the line. The fact that we do not accept that, and that we will do things differently, is a welcome change.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
We will scrutinise this Bill today, but we want to do so in a constructive fashion. Given the huge damage that President Trump’s tariffs have done to the British steel industry, accelerating this crisis, does the Secretary of State agree that any Member of this House who actively campaigned for President Trump’s election and cheered him on has behaved shamefully unpatriotically and should apologise to British steelworkers?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Member and his party for their presence today. He will not draw me on the other principal issue that we have been dealing with at the Department for Business and Trade over the last few days, but to be clear, the issues around British Steel are about more than the imposition of tariffs. The tariffs are not welcome, and I do not think there is justification for them to be put in place. I believe that it is in our interests, but also in the US’s interests, to agree a position that removes those tariffs in the interests of steelworkers.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I fully understand the nature of what the right hon. Gentleman is bringing forward. I also understand some of the requirements for speed in this case, and we can argue about whether this should have been done before. Having quickly looked through the Bill, I do not see a sunset clause. I ask about that not because I want the Government to set a particular date, but because such a clause would bring them back here to debate whether the process should be extended. It would therefore put a reasonable limit on Government activity without debate. Can he explain why there is no sunset clause in the Bill?
Jonathan Reynolds
I absolutely understand and welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s question. I do not want these powers for a minute more than is necessary. I cannot say at the minute, having drafted the Bill, the timeframe for which they will be required, but I will endeavour—and I commit at the Dispatch Box—to keep the House updated. Perhaps I will ask the Business and Trade Committee for its involvement, in order to make it clear how long we believe it will be. To be absolutely specific, where we make an order in relation to control of a steel undertaking, we can revoke the regulations once that control has been established and is no longer required.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jonathan Reynolds
I know there is huge interest, but I will make a little more progress and that might deal with some of the matters Members want to raise.
This is what it means to be a Government unashamedly on the side of working people—one that will never hesitate to take action to protect this nation’s assets and economic security. I understand that some have asked about precedent or referred to other troubled industrial situations. To be clear again, this is an exceptional and unique situation. The question for all Members is whether we as a country want to continue to possess a steel industry. Do we want to make the construction steel and rail we need here in the UK, or do we want to be dependent on overseas imports? As a Government, we are not passive in any way about the future of British industry.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The Secretary of State has said this is “unique” and “exceptional” and made reference to energy transitions and thousands of jobs. In the Scottish context, many minds right now will be focused on the situation in Grangemouth, where we know that hundreds of jobs will be lost directly, as well as thousands in the supply chain. Were I, or perhaps even the local Member, the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), to bring forward a similar Bill to save Scotland’s only oil refinery and give the Secretary of State the executive power to do as he pleases—as he is doing with British Steel—would the Labour party back it as it is backing this Bill today?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am pleased for the chance to address this issue. The importance of Grangemouth is why this Labour Government have pledged £200 million to secure its long-term future. It is an important asset, but it is not the only remaining refinery; it is one of three crackers in the United Kingdom—that is important. Specifically, it is not a comparable situation, and the behaviour of the company is not comparable to the case of British Steel.
I also say to the right hon. Member, and indeed to all Members, that this is why we fought and fought again to secure the future of British shipbuilding by saving all four of the Harland and Wolff sites in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member will know that the commercial interest was not in the Scottish yards, but we held them together precisely because of our commitment to Scotland and the Union. It is also why within weeks of taking office we secured a better deal for the workers at Port Talbot. We have repeatedly acted, and we will continue to act no matter how hard the circumstances.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the failure of the Tories and the SNP to develop an industrial strategy for Scotland meant that they had no plan for Grangemouth? They knew for over a decade about the problems at the refinery and did nothing. Does he agree that as soon as Labour came into power, we got to work and delivered support for the site, the workforce and the local community?
Jonathan Reynolds
I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments entirely. I do not believe there is a history of the SNP calling for the nationalisation of Grangemouth. It was, as ever, on the bandwagon. I think we all recognise that the SNP does not campaign on its record in running Scotland; it campaigns on grievance. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the contrast is with a Labour Government in this place who are on the side of working people everywhere.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State mentioned Port Talbot. I appreciate the unprecedented circumstances we find ourselves in today, when the Government have rightly moved quickly to safeguard primary steelmaking, and the Secretary of State will be very mindful of the extraordinarily difficult circumstances that the steel industry in south Wales has faced. I recognise the £80 million fund available, but can he make sure that south Wales and Llanwern benefit from their share of the £2.5 billion clean steel fund? Can that also be at the forefront of his mind?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am incredibly pleased to have the chance to answer the point my hon. Friend raises. The Port Talbot deal was originally negotiated by the previous Government. I did try to reopen it; I went to see Chandra in Davos and flew to Mumbai to talk to him about it. To be frank, I kept Port Talbot open on polling day, because it would have closed due to the industrial action that almost took place. The previous Government were nowhere to be seen, even before the result of the election was in. We were not able to reopen the deal, but we did negotiate a better deal. As a result, Port Talbot is in a stronger position than British Steel, because it has a long-term future in place. [Interruption.] This is because we improved on the deal that the Leader of the Opposition botched at the time. To be clear, the £2.5 billion green steel fund the Chancellor has put in place is in addition to the £500 million already going to Port Talbot. That is an incredibly important point.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way and for acting in the national interest—the complete opposite of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who said he was against intervening to save British Steel two years ago. Does the Secretary of State think the hon. Gentleman said that in the British interest or in the foreign interests the Reform party seeks to serve?
Jonathan Reynolds
I believe that that is on the record. I hope to convince all colleagues today to support this action, which is in the national interest.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
When the blast furnaces in Port Talbot closed down last September, this Government could have taken exactly the same legislative action as they have chosen to take today. We will endeavour to amend the Bill to include Wales, because there is still the opportunity for this Government to make a real difference to the community of Port Talbot and the 2,800 jobs that have been lost there.
Jonathan Reynolds
I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Lady, but the blast furnaces have already closed at Port Talbot. They are not available to be saved —that situation has moved on. Let me stress again: Port Talbot is in a stronger position because it has that long-term future in place and the potential additional investments through the green steel fund.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jonathan Reynolds
I think I must progress, Mr Speaker. I can see your indication to do so.
Dawn Butler
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and for the considered way in which he is looking after the national interest. The steel unions—the GMB, Community and Unite—would like clarification that any board that is set up will have at its heart the steelworkers who have kept the steelworks going through thick and thin.
Jonathan Reynolds
We remain in close engagement with all the unions, which have been monitoring the situation closely. Again, I reiterate that the Bill is not in itself about a change of ownership; it is about a change of control to rectify the situation. However, I will certainly have regard to the comments my hon. Friend has made and, of course, the role of the workforce at all stages.
We will never accept the argument that steelmaking is a sunset industry. Steel is vital to every bit of the modern economy. Domestic demand for steel is set only to go up, not down. In the past few weeks alone, we have seen Heathrow airport announce multibillion-pound expansion plans requiring 400,000 tonnes of new steel, and Universal Studios confirm it will be building Europe’s biggest theme park and, where possible, will use UK-made steel to do so. This Government are backing the builders, not the blockers. With the action we take today, we have the chance to feed that boom with steel made in Britain.
The legislation we are setting out today will help to end the uncertainty that has been hanging over British Steel’s Scunthorpe site for too long. I welcome the Opposition’s support today for this recall, but this issue should have been resolved years ago. I believe they may now view it as a mistake to have given this essential national asset to this company.
I have to address the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, which I do as a matter of genuine regret. She claimed that while she did my job, she negotiated a modernisation plan with British Steel to build an electric arc furnace at Teesside, followed by one at Scunthorpe. I wish to make it unequivocally clear to the House that the new Government inherited no such deal. We could not renege on that deal because it did not exist. On day one, I was told that there had been a lack of progress on this matter to date.
Jonathan Reynolds
If such a deal was negotiated, somehow in secret, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to say how much money she agreed to give Jingye for this deal and what conditions were placed on it. To state the obvious, building two electric arc furnaces in two different locations would be more expensive than building one in one location, and, given that Jingye’s request to build two furnaces in Scunthorpe was for £1.2 billion in taxpayers’ support, what—
Mrs Badenoch
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like advice on how to counter the points the Secretary of State is making, given that they are factually incorrect and a complete misrepresentation of the situation that he inherited.
Mr Speaker
It has just been clarified by your good self. I cannot make the Secretary of State give way when you want to come to the Dispatch Box, but I am sure that if he notices you doing so again, he may wish to.
Jonathan Reynolds
This is an excellent chance to clarify that. If the Leader of the Opposition agreed a deal with Jingye to cause massive job losses in Scunthorpe and transfer the jobs to a completely different place, and at higher cost than the request the company made to us, I think she should be able to tell us. I am more than happy to give way.
Mrs Badenoch
Labour cannot negotiate. We were negotiating a modernisation deal that would have had limited job losses, just as we had in Port Talbot. The Labour Government inherited a functioning commercial deal in Port Talbot, and the same would have happened with British Steel had we not had a snap election. What the Secretary of State is doing now is the union-pushed deal. They brought that deal to me—I said no; he said yes.
Jonathan Reynolds
This is genuinely revelatory. I say again: if Jingye’s request was for £1.2 billion to build at lesser cost in one place, what was the sum of money agreed by the Leader of the Opposition when she was Business Secretary to build in two places? It certainly was not in the accounts that the Chancellor had. I will give way. How much money was agreed to Jingye to close the jobs in Scunthorpe? I ask her.
Mrs Badenoch
When you are negotiating, you do not have—[Interruption.] Labour Members are cheering and laughing because they love this; they think that the public taking on billions of pounds in liabilities is fantastic. We had not finished the negotiation so there was no amount, but it would have succeeded better than the terrible plan that the Secretary of State has now.
Jonathan Reynolds
Our friends in the press will follow that up and find out exactly how much money the Leader of the Opposition secretly promised to Jingye to transfer those jobs out of Scunthorpe. I think it might be wise, on all counts, for that statement to be withdrawn.
The situation we inherited across the board on assuming office is one where most of our foundation industries were in some substantial difficulty. Since 2010, UK crude steel production has almost halved, and we know that rebuilding our steel industry after years of neglect will be a challenge, but it is one that this Government have grasped.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend and I were in this House in 2015 when the Conservative party sat on its hands and kissed goodbye to the Redcar blast furnace and, with it, the state-of-the-art coke ovens that could have resolved this situation today. Before he sits down, will he say something about the Jingye activities at Lackenby and Skinningrove and how they will be impacted by today’s announcement?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am really grateful that my hon. Friend has been able to put that point on the record for his community, to avoid the kind of situation we have seen in lots of industrial communities, to be frank, over the years. This is why we take this action today in the national interest: to provide that bridge and that possibility to the future.
Specifically in relation to the downstream mills, even if we were willing to accept a situation in which they were supplied from a foreign country, as in this case, the confidence of consumers and businesses would surely be put at risk and it would bring into question the entirety of British Steel’s workforce and business and a huge part of our strategic assets. That, again, is why this decisive action today is necessary.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman said that steel production is strategically important, and I agree. He said that we should be avoiding having to be reliant on imports, and I agree. However, his Government blocked production of the raw material metallurgical coalmine in the north-west. Will he now go back to his colleagues in Government and the company to encourage them to reapply so we can have security not just of steelmaking, but of the raw materials that are needed to make it?
Jonathan Reynolds
The hon. Lady will know that the company brought into question whether that coal was the right grade for blast furnace supplies. I remember several debates in this place about that. I should also make it clear—I think hon. Members understand this—that we are talking about two blast furnaces that date from the 1930s and 1950s. We must also be looking to the future, to new technology and new investments. Crucially, having the dedicated resources that this Government have put into steel is why we have the chance to look to the future with optimism. The UK steel industry is an outlier, in the sense that it is a much smaller proportion of our overall economy than in any major comparable economy, so of course there is potential, and we should look to the future. I would be more than willing to work with the hon. Lady as a local MP to do so.
Mr Joshua Reynolds
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Once he has the powers in this Bill, I urge him to use them decisively and swiftly, but then, as he has said, we need to look to the future. Once we have secured Scunthorpe’s future, we need to discuss what happens next, which is clean energy, and investing in the global clean energy that the UK really could succeed in. Does he agree that the people of Scunthorpe have upheld their end of the bargain for decades, and now it is time that we in this House make sure we uphold our end too?
Jonathan Reynolds
The hon. Member puts it extremely well, if I may say so. The people who have upheld steel as the backbone of construction in the UK for decades deserve better treatment than they would have had if Parliament had not been recalled today to take this action, and we should all bear that in mind.
Whether it is at Port Talbot, via our upcoming steel strategy, via our work to improve public procurement, or in the introduction of our industrial strategy to tackle the most thorny issues of industrial competitiveness, where others have shied away, this Government have stepped up.
Let me conclude by saying that steel is fundamental to Britain’s industrial strength, our security and our identity as a primary global power. Today’s legislation will help ensure that we can retain that steelmaking capability here in the UK both now and for years to come. For British workers’ security, for British industries’ future and—without hesitation—in our national interest, and for the workers of British Steel and their families, this action is essential, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Daisy Cooper
As the hon. Member knows, the three things that I have just outlined—British Steel being sold for a pound, British Steel entering insolvency and the Government’s Insolvency Service being left temporarily running the firm—all happened in 2019.
With Putin’s barbaric war in Europe and Donald Trump’s disastrous tariffs causing economic turmoil around the world, we must secure the future of steel production here at home. We Liberal Democrats welcome the sense of seriousness and urgency shown by the Government in recalling Parliament. We must work together to rescue our steel sector and the tens of thousands of jobs that directly and indirectly rely on it. But under the terms of the Bill, the Secretary of State is giving himself huge and unconstrained powers that could set a very dangerous precedent. I urge him to make a commitment, in the strongest possible terms, to repeal the powers that he is giving himself as soon as possible—within six months at the latest—and to come back to this House for another vote to extend those powers if they are still required after that.
Jonathan Reynolds
As I tried to articulate in my opening speech on Second Reading, I understand the gravity of the situation, which gives puts some context to the demands for further powers to be included in the Bill. The limitation, as wide as it is, is the right measure, and I can give the hon. Member my absolute assurance that I shall seek to do exactly as she says.
Daisy Cooper
I am incredibly grateful to the Secretary of State for giving that assurance, which is important in the context of what the powers in the Bill actually are.
Clause 3(4)(a) gives the Secretary of State the power to break into anywhere to seize assets. Clause 3(4)(c) gives the Secretary of State the power to take whatever steps he considers appropriate—not what a court or a reasonable person might consider to be appropriate—to seize or secure assets. Clause 4(3), on offences, makes it a crime for anyone not to follow the instructions of the Secretary of State, or to refuse to assist the Secretary of State in taking those steps without a “reasonable excuse”. However, a “reasonable excuse” is not defined in the Bill, no examples are given, and, quite frankly, it is hard to work out what defence of a “reasonable excuse” might be accepted given that, under clause 3(4)(c), it is whatever the Secretary of State himself considers to be okay.
Clause 6(1), on indemnities appears to give the Secretary of State and potentially any other person who is with him—a police officer, a civil servant, or a Border Force official—immunity from prosecution for using any of these wide-ranging powers. These powers are unprecedented and they are unconstrained. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for saying that that is precisely why he intends to repeal them as soon as possible.
More broadly, the Government must now also bring forward plans to guarantee the future of this vital sector. We know the steel industry is surrounded by crippling uncertainty. After decades of underinvestment and shocking indifference to our sovereign economic security, the previous Conservative Government have left our sovereign national capacity on steel diminished and endangered. Yet there is no chance that UK demand for steel will disappear. How absurd and irresponsible is it that we have a sustainable and enduring long-term market for British steel, but that our supply could keel over in a matter of days because of the failures of the failed Conservative party?
So looking ahead, let us remember that saving Scunthorpe is necessary, but not sufficient on its own. There have been significant discussions about the future ownership structure of this company. Given the precarious fiscal position in which the Government find themselves, it is important that all options on ownership are put on the table, so that this House can take an informed decision about what they mean for the public finances. I hope the Government will make a commitment that, in the coming weeks, they will bring forward a report that sets out options for future ownership of the plant.
Looking ahead, many big questions remain unanswered. Will the Government immediately designate UK-made steel a nationally strategic asset? Will they be using direct reduced iron, and, if so, will that form part of the UK’s plans alongside protecting the production of virgin steel at Scunthorpe? When will the Government bring forward a comprehensive plan to ensure that more British steel is used in vital infrastructure projects, from defence to renewable energy? Will Ministers work shoulder to shoulder with our European and Commonwealth partners to tear down trade barriers, including by negotiating a customs union by 2030? Will they develop initiatives to retrain and upskill workers across the country as we transition to greener methods of steel production? How do the Government intend to respond to calls from UK Steel for the Government to achieve the lowest electricity prices in Europe, parity with competitors on network charges, and wholesale electricity market reform?
This case should also raise concerns about the role of Chinese corporate interests in the UK’s national critical infrastructure. The decision by British Steel’s Chinese owners to turn down the Government’s offer of £500 million to support the future of the Scunthorpe plant has directly precipitated this crisis. We must now be clear-eyed about the risks posed by Chinese involvement in our country’s vital infrastructure. To that end, will the Minister tell the House when the Government’s promised UK-China audit will be released, and how the Government plan to strengthen protections for critical infrastructure? Can he assure the House that the Government have assessed whether there is any risk that Jingye, on behalf of the Chinese Government, has deliberately run down the plant to jeopardise the UK’s capacity to produce steel?
We are in a precarious position, and it is not as if there were no warnings. In 2022, the Royal United Services Institute think-tank said:
“Domestically produced steel is used in defence applications, and offshoring the supply chain may have security implications—for example, in a scenario where multiple allied countries rearm simultaneously at a time of global supply disruption, such as during a major geopolitical confrontation.”
The fact that Jingye has now closed down the supply of raw materials is further evidence that the plant should not have been sold to it in the first place. Quite frankly, the fact that some Conservative MPs are calling for nationalisation shows how far through the looking glass we really are.
Is not the Conservatives’ attitude abundantly clear? On national security, they cut troop numbers by 10,000; on food security, they undermined our farmers with unforgiveably bad trade deals; and on economic security, they left our country with almost no sovereign steel capacity. On security, the Conservatives left our island nation severely vulnerable, like flotsam in the sea, passively bobbing up and down or being bashed around by the tides of international events.
As for hon. Members from the private limited company Reform Ltd, they have a bit of cheek to claim to support UK steelworkers while cheering on their pal President Trump, whose punishing trade war is putting those steelworkers’ jobs at risk. Perhaps the company’s directors who sit in this House will come clean about whose side they are really on.
Time and again, we have seen the failures of an ad hoc, piecemeal approach to industry across all sectors, from the failure of our water companies to the shocking state of our housing nationally and the dismal situation of our health service. For too long, there has been no stability for these industries, which are constantly fixed on a short-term basis only, to the point where they are practically held together by string and tape and the dedicated workers who remain. We Liberal Democrats stand ready to help constructively to bring about an outcome that delivers real change.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), my Member of Parliament; on this matter we are in complete harmony. Before I talk about the local situation, which is what I want to focus on, may I thank the Secretary of State for giving me a call yesterday evening and outlining the proposals he would be bringing forward this morning? I did say to him that I would not be entirely uncritical, so I am sure he will not mind a few jabs here and there.
The local situation is extremely critical, as has been pointed out. The impact, not only on the workforce but on the wider economy of northern Lincolnshire, would be extensive. I have been a resident in the Grimsby-Cleethorpes area all my life, and I have seen the impact when a town loses its core industry. In the case of Grimsby, of course, that was the deep-sea fishing industry. When that decline happens—it has happened to so many towns up and down the country as a result of the decline in mining, shipbuilding and other heavy industries—it takes a generation or perhaps more for the town to fully recover.
That is the last thing I want to see happen in my neighbouring constituency of Scunthorpe, or to the hundreds of my constituents who work there. Those Members who were here for the Easter Adjournment debate—there were a handful—might have heard me say this only four days ago, but the site extends way beyond the bounds of Scunthorpe, into my Brigg and Immingham constituency. The site is the equivalent of 1,133 Wembley football pitches, which gives an idea of its size and of the amount of work that would be needed were the steelworks to close. There would be demands for vast Government investment over decades, in order to remediate the site and to provide new employment.
I said that I would not be entirely uncritical of the Secretary of State, so I refer him to my first urgent question on this matter, on 5 September last year. I said on that occasion:
“There have been widespread media reports suggesting that coke will stop being imported from October, which would mean production would stop in Scunthorpe by Christmas. There are rumours concerning the fact that employees will be given notice very soon. That is obviously creating great anxiety among those directly employed by British Steel and those in the supply chain, which in northern Lincolnshire extends to many thousands of people and many businesses.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 424.]
Thankfully, we have had a six-month reprieve from those threats in October, but I have to say, the Government have been a little dilatory on this. I appreciate that negotiations have been taking place and Ministers cannot give away their negotiating position, but I made this point as long ago as September, as well as when you granted me an urgent question on 27 March, Mr Speaker—only a couple of weeks ago—and surely the Government were beginning to realise at that point that the negotiations with Jingye were going nowhere.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that point on the record. It is precisely because of those concerns that we were able to have ready a legal route to intervene to directly offer support to purchase raw materials. What we could not have anticipated or expected was for a company to act in an irrational economic manner when such a clear, distinctive and generous offer was made.
Martin Vickers
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I would say merely that he has been party to the negotiations, and he must surely have realised that the company was not negotiating in good faith and expected his officials to prepare legislation, if required, to deal with the situation that we are now in. As others have said, this is crucial not just for thousands of my constituents who work at the site, but for the defence of the nation. I assume and hope that Defence Ministers have been lobbying the Secretary of State to make their concerns clear.
Locally, there is continuing concern. Like the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I will support the proposals. I floated the nationalisation issue on 27 March, and I see this as a stepping-stone to that situation. To those who will perhaps demand nationalisation today, I would say that this is a very complex issue, and what matters more than anything else is the future of the workforce and the ability to produce virgin steel. Nationalisation legislation would not, I sincerely hope, be passed in three hours; it would involve a great deal of work.
Having got themselves into this situation, the Government are now taking the right action. There has been disappointment locally—to put it mildly—that the Prime Minister did not, following my question to him only 10 days ago, take up the option to meet a cross-party delegation of MPs to discuss the situation, but now that we are where we are, I fully support the Government, and I hope that they accept the sunset clause amendment, which would be prudent. I can assure them of my full support today, which they will continue to have when they act in the best interests of my constituents.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I will try to be brief and stay focused on the Bill. Let me start by saying that we should all focus on the requirement to save the jobs of those 3,500 people who have this threat hanging over them. In fact, I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) that 2,500 people have already received a redundancy notice, and they will be very worried at the moment. Our thoughts should be with them today. Coming in on a Saturday is right if it saves their jobs. I am certainly prepared to vote for that.
The Bill does give vast powers to the right hon. Gentleman the Business Secretary and the Government. As others have said, I trust him personally—this is not an attack on him—but we in this House should never trust Government more than we have to. I have said this on both sides of the Chamber, by the way. I therefore urge him to have another look at the sunset clause, which I raised earlier. It is not saying, “We don’t trust you”; it is saying that sometimes Governments are taken down sidetracks, and before we know what has happened, the powers are beginning to be used for the wrong purpose. I urge him to introduce the sunset clause, or even to do so in the other place, to give the House real powers to come back. For everyone’s sake—even those on the Government Benches—I think that would be worth doing, because it would allow us to have a strong debate on how the powers are being used and would perhaps even enable us to influence what is taking place.
The reason for this debate is clearly the massively changed needs of this country, particularly after the event that we never thought would happen: Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine. As a result, weapons and arms are needed on an unprecedented scale, there is a plan to build up the armed forces, and they need the very high-quality virgin steel that is produced in this plant. Without it, we would have to import it. Frankly, China does not produce that quality of steel. The other reason is the tariff war now taking place, which has introduced 25% tariffs on the car industry, which is one of the biggest purchasers of steel. All those things make the Bill very much necessary.
We have another problem, which I hope the Government will deal with in the context of the Bill when they talk to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Things have changed. The Prime Minister himself has said that the world has changed. We have been operating in what we considered to be a global free market. I have argued for some time that this is not a free market. Far too many countries such as China have abused the rules of the free market, subsidised their industries ridiculously and used slave labour to produce their products. When that happens, the free market is dead. We must recognise that we will have to deal with those whom we trust and who do not break the rules. That means a whole rethink of the Government’s China policy and of whether we need to rush to China for investment. We need to ensure that we deal with our industry at home and that we produce things again.
One problem is the energy costs our industry faces, which are really quite stark. Our industry is not just in competition with China; even the costs in Europe are far less now. I will give a short list. The costs in the UK are now the highest in the world, at $400 per megawatt-hour. Germany, which has the highest costs in the rest of Europe, is at $250 per megawatt-hour, while France and the others all have lower costs for producing energy. That energy is critical for the steel industry, and that is one of the big issues that the Secretary of State has to deal with. China, with its subsidies and broken free market rules, is at $60 per megawatt-hour. We should not attempt to compete with it; we must say that it is not competitive at all. [Interruption.] Exactly right, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) says.
Others are complaining about China right now. Countries in the far east, such as Vietnam and South Korea, are accusing it of dumping. What we have in China is something that will really hit us hard and make the Secretary of State’s job even worse: very simply, China is now suffering from the over-production of steel. Its housing industry has gone static, and that was one of the biggest users of the steel it produced. Where will that steel go?
By the way, it is no surprise that a Chinese company, Jingye, is involved. In pushing to shut down the blast furnaces in the UK, it knows that we will have to buy slab steel from China. That is not a coincidence; it is all part of the plan. That company is linked directly to the Chinese Communist party, and it is high time that we called that out. In his negotiations, the Secretary of State needs to remind Jingye that the reality is that it is not a private company. The previous Conservative Government should never have awarded it the contract, and I warned them about that. It is time for us to make sure that we deal with China at face value and do not accept the pretence that this company is private or in any way detached from its Government. That is a critical point.
There is much to be dealt with, and I urge the Government to listen to the House and to check all of this. Cheap Chinese steel is a desperate problem for us, and we need to work with other countries in dealing with it. We also need to get our costs down. On net zero, I hope that the Secretary of State will tell the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero that we cannot go on like this.
Jonathan Reynolds
This is such an important point, and I will be exceptionally brief, but the right hon. Gentleman knows from debates that he and I have been in that I am obsessed with the issue of industrial energy prices and by the very substantial rise from 2010 to 2024—a 50% real-terms increase. As I think he knows, the two fundamental issues are: first, our network charges and how we do those, which is different from other countries; and secondly, fundamentally, the marginal cost is set by the price of gas—the fossil fuel price—for the overall system. I am not completely rejecting everything that he is saying, but we must understand that key point: it is the gas price.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful for that, because it allows me to say something that I had not been planning to say: we sit on an island of gas, so why, for goodness’ sake, are we not drilling for it? We need it, and we will need it strategically. There is a need for strategic industry, and I agree with the Secretary of State on that. However, the issue does not stop there; it stops elsewhere, in the production of energy. I simply leave that point for him, and he can argue it with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
I want to say one final thing. In the course of this Chinese company’s operations, I have talked to a number of people involved in the business, and its record on health and safety and on the abuse of the workers in the blast furnace area has been shocking. We should look into that much more carefully. The company has brought in cheap Chinese workers and pays them nothing like what it pays the British workers. Many of those workers have ended up burned and in great difficulty. I simply say that this is not a company we should be doing business with right now.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd.
Today’s legislation to safeguard the UK’s last bastion of primary steelmaking capacity is of course to be supported, but what my party cannot support is this Government’s approach to steel in the UK, which deems that steel in Scunthorpe is worth saving but steel in Wales is not. Today is a bitter day for the people of Port Talbot, where the blast furnaces have been extinguished because Labour let that happen. Job losses there will take an estimated £200 million from the local economy in lost wages. People in south Wales have been loyally voting for Labour for decades. Do this Labour Government feel proud that those votes have been paid back by Tory-style deindustrialisation in Port Talbot?
Plaid Cymru has called consistently for nationalisation, but the Labour First Minister of Wales rejected our calls and described nationalisation as “pipe dreams”. Labour in Wales was quick to mock our proposal, which we made 21 times—over and over again—in Cardiff and here in Westminster. Now it is UK Labour policy.
The Government must set out how much of the £2.5 billion steel fund will be allocated to securing Scunthorpe, and how that compares with the amount given to support laid-off workers in Wales.
Liz Saville Roberts
The right hon. Gentleman’s Government did not intervene in Wales.
Liz Saville Roberts
I will take no interventions. His Government did not intervene in Wales. Under his Government, Scunthorpe gets security; Port Talbot gets a pittance. Plaid Cymru believes that Port Talbot should and could have received equal treatment alongside Scunthorpe. That is why we have tabled an amendment to include Wales in the terms of the Bill, and to highlight that the measures we are debating today could have been used to save the blast furnaces at Tata Steel in Wales. We will not let Labour hide from the fact that it owns the decision not to intervene to save Welsh steel when it had the opportunity to do so.
Workers and communities must be at the heart of any long-term solution for the steel industry. So far, Labour in Westminster and Labour in Cardiff have worked in partnership to dispatch thousands of Welsh workers to uncertainty and hopelessness. People in Wales will not forget today. It is a day of bitter disappointment for Port Talbot.
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House not just for participating in this debate, but for returning to this place in these exceptional circumstances. There seems to be some debate about it, but I think this is the sixth time since the second world war that we have met on a Saturday, and only the second time that the House has been recalled on a Saturday—the other being during the Falklands war.
Before I respond to Members’ comments, I echo the point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his opening remarks: this Government will never hesitate to protect our steel industry and the thousands of steel workers in this country who built it. We always said, from the outset of our negotiations with Jingye, that we would keep every option on the table and would act in the national interest to protect jobs. UK-forged steel built our railways, bridges and buildings. It is integral to our economy’s future, just as much as it has been to our rich industrial past. That is why we need to pass this legislation today.
I will try to address as many of the points raised as I can. Members made the argument for British Steel. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) pointed out that 95% of Network Rail steel is from British Steel. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) pointed out that TfL would not get anywhere were it not for steel. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), who has such expertise, pointed out that steel is the future and everything we have is made from or with steel.
I can reassure the House that our plan for steel—the £2.5 billion that we committed to in the manifesto—will work to break down the trade barriers that we have on steel, consider the all new technologies that we can introduce, and look across the whole of the UK to ensure that we protect steel everywhere.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Minister speaks about the whole of the United Kingdom. I am very pleased that the Government are acting, literally at pace for once, by stepping in to protect the workers in Scunthorpe, in precisely the opposite way to when they turned a blind eye to the plight of workers at Grangemouth, which is also critical national infrastructure labouring under energy prices. Why is there one rule for industrial production in England and another for industrial production in Scotland?
Sarah Jones
In the first 10 weeks after coming to power, this Government negotiated a better deal on Port Talbot and delivered a £200 million commitment to secure the future of Grangemouth. We acted last week on the zero emission vehicle mandate to secure our automotive industry. We are acting today to save the workers of Scunthorpe. The Government believe in direct action—in an active state securing the future of our industry across the UK.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) raised trade protection issues. I want to reassure her that we will ensure that the right trade protections are in place for our steel industry. Concerns were raised about future decisions about moving towards nationalisation and whether we would come back to this place. I can reassure the House that we will come back to this place if are any further matters relating to ownership or otherwise. We will keep the House updated.
Concerns were raised about the “reasonable excuse” part of the Bill, and examples were requested. The “reasonable excuse” clause could include physical inability, illness or accident, and it is reasonable and measured in this case.
Many hon. Members talked about China. We are focusing on this company today; we are not focusing on the nation of China. The Bill is about what has happened with British Steel and what this Government are going to about British Steel. I would not want this House to believe that the policy of this Government is anything other than a belief in free and fair trade, and that includes with China.
Turning to the sunset clause amendments that have been tabled and the suggestions during the debate that those measures should be included in the Bill, I reiterate what the Secretary of State explained about the risk of a hard backstop reducing our leverage, which was why we did not include a sunset clause. However, we have heard the House’s concerns. I confirm that we will repeal the legislation as quickly as we can and that we will involve the Select Committee. I also make this pledge to the House: we will update the House regularly and the Secretary of State has committed to do so every four working weeks. I hope that that will give the House reassurance.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s actions today. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry for all the hard work that she has put in to get us to this place. Does she agree with me that our future industrial strategy must contain an extended section on Government procurement for steel, so that British-produced steel has a fair crack of the whip in the future?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right that procurement has a key role to play in our industrial strategy in steel and beyond. We are working with colleagues in the Cabinet Office to ensure that that is the case. I speak to the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) about these issues regularly, as does the Secretary of State—
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is reported that Jingye management has been turned away by workers and the Humberside police today, so will the Minister tell the House whether the Government’s policy is to bar Jingye management from going on to the premises?
Mr Speaker
As the right hon. Member knows, that is great information but not a point of order.
Sarah Jones
I will not comment from the Dispatch Box on reports that have been made during the debate. We are actively engaged, minute by minute, on activities in British Steel. If anything, those reports underwrite the need for the powers in the Bill to be introduced on this day. I hope all hon. Members will support the introduction of the legislation and vote for it today.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham suggested that we could have moved faster. I reassure the House that we do not recall the House lightly. We do it because we have a choice today: do we want to deny any possibility of the future of the steelworks at Scunthorpe and do we want to see the closure of the blast furnaces, or do we want to secure a future for those workers and for primary steelmaking in this country?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Sarah Jones
I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me, but there is no time for me to give way. I reassure the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham that in no way have we moved slowly—we have been moving at pace throughout our time in government.
There were suggestions that we should move to nationalise British Steel today and that this Bill is already nationalisation. It is not nationalisation and we are not moving to nationalise British Steel today. We are taking very significant powers that we do not underestimate. That buys us time to have the leverage and the time we need to look at what must be done next, but we will act in the national interest. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, nothing is off the table. There was a suggestion that we should use the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. That is difficult to do because it is very hard to meet the criteria; there has to be a risk of death, so we did not meet that criteria.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) that economic security and national security are two sides of the same coin. The emergency legislation we have brought forward today is essential to protect British Steel, its workforce and the national interest. This Government will never hesitate to act in the national interest to keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad, and this legislation is proof of that. Today we take back control, and I urge all Members of this House to vote for this Bill.
Saturday 12th April 2025
(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberSteel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 94-I Marshalled list for Committee - (12 Apr 2025)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2024-26 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, for the record, we debated the purpose of this Bill earlier today.
Saturday 12th April 2025
(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberSteel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 94-I Marshalled list for Committee - (12 Apr 2025)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2024-26 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I entirely support the Bill and I ask this question only because I am concerned about exactly what is meant by Clause 3(4)(a) saying that the Secretary of State can enter a premises “using force if necessary”. How is that expected to work?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that by now noble Lords will be more than familiar with what the Government are seeking to do with this legislation. It will allow us to take control of British Steel’s blast furnaces, maintaining steel production and, by extension, protecting the company’s 3,500-strong workforce. As such, I will turn swiftly to the amendments at hand.
Noble Lords across the House have raised a number of important issues relating to the parliamentary scrutiny of this Bill. I want to reassure noble Lords that this Government take these concerns very seriously. With regard to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, that seeks to add a sunset clause to the Bill, I will reiterate what I said earlier: because of the speed at which this legislation has been drafted and the uncertainty of the situation, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to set a timeline on those specific interventions. As noble Lords are keenly aware, the current international situation is unpredictable. A fixed sunset clause would not be practical and would cause an unacceptable amount of uncertainty if a solution to the issue at hand became protracted. In those circumstances, we might have to come back to Parliament and go over this whole process again.
We can revoke directions given to a particular steel company at any time once the need for intervention has passed. As I have said, we would welcome working with the Business and Trade Select Committee in the other place and relevant committees of your Lordships’ House, to make sure that we work with your Lordships and Members of the other place and keep everyone updated, so that these powers are not in place any longer than is absolutely necessary.
I was clear in the debate earlier today that the Government will provide an update to Parliament every four sitting weeks, as well as providing information to relevant Select Committees. I do not want to pre-empt discussions in the usual channels across both Houses about the nature of these updates, but it is our intention that the first instance will be an Oral Statement and that subsequent updates will be made in an appropriate manner. What this means in practice will be subject to further discussion but could, for example, be determined by the reality on the ground at that time.
Given the interest in both the steel sector and the use of powers in this Bill, I can confirm that my noble friend the Chief Whip will facilitate a fuller debate on the Floor of the House on the operation of what will then be the Act. This will take place within six months, with exact details to be subject to further discussion in the usual channels. In addition, as stated in the Government’s letter to all Peers this morning, we intend to publish our steel strategy in the spring. We will continue other related work, such as on our modern industrial strategy, and we will of course update noble Lords on that as well. All of these moments will allow scrutiny of the Government’s use of the powers in this Bill and of our wider efforts to support the vitally important steel industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, draws attention to Clause 3(2) and his concern about the words that the Secretary of State can do “anything”. I have to say to him that those words need to be read in conjunction with the rest of that sentence, which limits them to anything that a
“relevant person in relation to that undertaking could do”.
It is for only a very specific purpose. I hope that this commitment satisfies the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.
I underline that a sunset clause would create further uncertainty for thousands of workers, who need to know that their jobs are secure on a long-term basis. Inserting a sunset clause would create an arbitrary deadline by which the long-term future of that plant would need to be settled. As I said before, nothing is off the table in our response to securing the future of steel in this country. We should send a strong message today to those whose livelihoods depend on the steel sector that this Parliament stands behind them.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, seeks to add to Clause 3(2), after “the Secretary of State”, the words,
“or a responsible person they designate”.
I can confirm that Clause 3(2) entitles the Secretary of State to do
“anything … that the steel undertaking, or any relevant person … could do”.
So officials can act in the name of the Secretary of State.
Regarding the question of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about using force if necessary, this will be a statutory power to be carried out by those acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. Officials or their agents could use force to enter the premises, but this would have to be lawful force; therefore, they could not assault anyone, and there would have to be clear barriers on their actions. It is up to police judgment as to whether they would intervene, based on usual policing principles.
I hope I have been able to provide reassurance on all these matters. I therefore respectfully ask that all the amendments in this group are not pressed.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I join the Minister in wanting to send a strong message from Parliament to all those involved in the Scunthorpe steelworks that we are solidly in support of them, and that everything we do today is directed to that end.
Turning to my amendment and the debate we have just had, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, made a very important point about civil servants being able to act in the name of the Secretary of State. My noble friend Lady Coffey confirmed that that was the case, so at least we know where we are.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, very much indeed. He and I have been working together on this as hard as we possibly can to find a way through, because we do not want to stop this action in its tracks—far from it. We just feel that Parliament—in particular, the House of Lords—and the words of our Constitution Committee should not be disregarded. The committee has a right to stress the importance of sunset clauses.
However, having heard this debate, I am quite happy, following discussions through the usual channels, to indicate that such a debate could be postponed until we know a little more clearly where we are. In six months’ time, if we are to have—as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, have suggested—what he referred to as a substantive debate, and, as the Minister said, further debate on the operation of this legislation, we have made a great deal of progress. The voice of this Chamber has been heard, and I am very pleased to have been able to speak in this debate. I say to my noble friend Lord Moylan that he and I still await the reply to the question that he posed, but no doubt the Minister will write.
I do not think that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has had an answer to her point about force. That is something that we will have to leave for another day, but it is a very important issue. We should not be giving powers in this Parliament to individuals to use force without clarifying exactly the circumstances in which they can be used.
All in all, we have reached a reasonable conclusion, and I am very grateful to the Minister for having listened so carefully and taken to heart the concerns of this Chamber about the need for this legislation to have an end date. We will return to that in the debate that we will have in October on a substantive Motion, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Saturday 12th April 2025
(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberSteel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 94-I Marshalled list for Committee - (12 Apr 2025)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2024-26 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, we are moving at pace, which is a good thing. I remain grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this process, in particular those who tabled amendments and those who have spoken in today’s debates.
The passing of this legislation is needed not just to protect British Steel and its 3,500 employees; it is needed to protect the future of the UK steel industry to forge the steel needed in our railways, homes and critical infrastructure. That is what is at stake here, which is why I am grateful to all those who have supported the Government in our action today. Our decision to protect UK steel-making now and long into the future is essential.
We know that events such as this are exceptionally rare, but the Government would never have requested a reconvening of Parliament were it not absolutely necessary. The emergency legislation introduced to this House means that the Government will now be able to order the iron ore, coal and other raw materials needed to keep the blast furnaces at Scunthorpe running.
I am grateful to everyone who has played a part in getting this legislation over the line. This includes noble Lords in this place, officials at the Department for Business and Trade, those in departments across government who have worked on the Bill, and the staff here on the estate who were called in at incredibly short notice. It is thanks to all those efforts that we can protect steel-making in this country now and for years to come. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I shall be very brief. I just want to say that this is a very important and necessary debate, and it is right that we have had it today to do everything we can to support our remaining steel industry. I have sadly witnessed the demise of this great industry in Wales, particularly south Wales. As I say, we must do all we can to protect Scunthorpe, and this emergency Bill is intended to do just that.
It has been a very good debate, with passion from all sides of your Lordships’ House. On behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. In particular, I thank the Minister for her part in this. Without further ado, I wish noble Lords well for the rest of the recess and a particularly happy Easter.