British Steel

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

I wish to make a statement on British Steel.

The public interest test

The Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 grants powers to allow the Secretary of State to bring a steel company into public ownership where it is necessary in the public interest. Ministers must carefully consider the public interest test and the likely costs prior to exercising the powers. In the case of British Steel Ltd, it has important capability in the production of several essential steel products, which are integral to the construction and maintenance of our critical national infrastructure.

Given the financial challenges that the company is facing and has faced for some time, the Government’s assessment is that, without taking it into public ownership, where a plan could be developed for a sustainable future, there is a significant risk that it would fail and this capability would be lost. Such an outcome would directly disrupt the national rail network and increase supply chain risk for industry, including major infrastructure projects. It would reduce UK steelmaking capacity to around half of the requirements anticipated by 2035, leaving the UK vulnerable to volatility in international markets and international supply chains. All of these outcomes would be significant and difficult to reverse.

The Government’s assessment, based on the relevant factors, including cost considerations, is that it is necessary in the public interest to nationalise British Steel Ltd. We have not taken this decision lightly but we consider that it is the only viable route forward in these circumstances.

Nationalisation

The Government have nationalised British Steel Ltd. Its transfer to public ownership took place this morning, using powers granted by the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026.

Steel underpins the growth-driving sectors of the Government’s industrial strategy, and British Steel is among the largest steel producers in the UK. The decisive action taken today secures its immediate future, secures steelmaking in support of our steel strategy, and supports the jobs and steelmaking communities that have underpinned the business for decades.

Nationalisation brings to an end the temporary special measures that were applied under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025, which secured the continued operations of Scunthorpe’s blast furnaces. The Government would like to place on record our appreciation for the continued dedication and professionalism of the company’s workers and management throughout this period of uncertainty.

Nationalisation brings stability to the firm and its workforce, and allows it to look forward, making steel in the national interest, owned by the people of this country. All business, jobs, customers and suppliers continue as normal through the transfer into public ownership.

Company governance

British Steel is now a Government-owned company and public non-financial corporation, with the Secretary of State as its sole shareholder. The Government are putting in place a new board of directors who will bring extensive commercial and industrial expertise to support the company and management in stabilising operations and moving the firm on from its current poor commercial position. The board will prioritise the health and safety of the firm’s workforce. The board will be set clear objectives by Ministers, and will include representatives from UK Government Investments and the Department for Business and Trade to support the Government’s shareholder interests.

The board will be responsible for developing a plan to transform British Steel into a commercially and environmentally sustainable steelmaking enterprise, and for exploring possible options for private sector investment. The board will also be tasked with ensuring that the voice of workers is at the heart of the company, working with management, employees and trade unions, including worker representation on the board.

Compensation

The Government recognise that this is a significant intervention. The Government have and will always respect and adhere to our legal obligations under domestic and international law.

The former owner of British Steel Ltd was Jingye Group. The Government held commercial negotiations with the group over the potential acquisition by Government of British Steel, but unfortunately it was not possible to reach an agreement that represented value to the taxpayer. The Government’s view is that the commercial value today of the business, given its history of loss making and its current poor financial position, is nil.

Following nationalisation, the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 requires the Government to introduce a compensation scheme through regulations. These will be laid and debated by Parliament in the autumn. The regulations will provide for the appointment of an independent third-party valuer, who will assess what compensation, if any, is owed to the company. We will abide by the final outcome of this process and pay any compensation accordingly.

The compensation scheme regulations will include a right to appeal the determinations of the independent valuer to the upper tribunal. We expect that the independent valuer will invite submissions from the affected parties. The Government will publish the final determinations of the independent valuer and lay those before Parliament.

Throughout the negotiations mentioned above, the Government have engaged in good faith.

Financial assistance

The Government understand the interest from parliamentarians in the public funding offered to British Steel and the plan for its future.

All financial assistance offered to British Steel under the provisions in the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 will be reported in the ordinary way. In addition, the Government will publish on a quarterly basis for at least one year, written ministerial statements to give contemporary information on financial assistance offered. These will replace the written ministerial statements offered pursuant to the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025, since the special measures applied under that Act have now been superseded by nationalisation.

The Government anticipate that the relevant committees in Parliament will take an interest in the company’s annual report and strategic plans, and will be pleased to support its scrutiny of these.

The Government are ambitious for the future of British Steel and committed to working collectively with the workforce to achieve the best possible outcome for the business.

[HCWS273]

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 18.

[Chris McDonald]

It is a pleasure to be back in the House today to see through the final stages of this Bill. The Government support all the Lords amendments before us.

I wish to pay tribute to my colleague Minister Leong for so expertly guiding the Bill through its passage in the other place. I also wish to place on the record my thanks for the constructive approach taken by peers to the scrutiny of the Bill during its passage through the upper House, including the constructive and careful consideration from His Majesty’s official Opposition, Liberal Democrat peers and Cross-Bench peers. I thank them for their contribution.

We have a responsibility to act now to secure the future of the UK steel industry. This Bill will assist in that by ensuring that steel production is secured, helping to restore domestic production to sustainable levels and supporting the Government’s economic growth plans where the public interest test is met.

The Lords amendments before us strengthen the Bill in several ways. Amendment 1 ensures that the sunset power in the Bill may be extended only by increments of two years. This means that the Government would have to seek parliamentary approval at regular intervals to keep the principal transfer powers on the statute book.

Lords amendments 2 and 3 place a duty on the Secretary of State to consider the costs that are likely to be associated with the exercise of the principal transfer powers, ensuring that such costs are considered in any decision making over the use of these powers.

Lords amendments 4 and 5 upgrade the parliamentary procedure relating to continuity obligations and enforcement, ensuring that Parliament has increased scrutiny of these matters.

Lords amendments 6 to 18 all relate to the appointment and role of an independent valuer and ensure that key considerations around environmental and health and safety liabilities are taken into account during any valuation exercise.

A final decision on the use of the powers in the Bill has not been taken. Any decision to exercise the powers in the Bill will be subject to satisfaction of the public interest test, based on the relevant facts at the time of the decision.

Steel has shaped our nation’s history, and this Bill is an opportunity to ensure its long-term success. The Bill enables decisive action for a strategically vital industry, defending our national security and supporting our critical national infrastructure, our economy and our national interest. I therefore ask right hon. and hon. Members to support the Lords amendments before us today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the Lords amendments. As hon. Members will know, part of my constituency takes in the Scunthorpe steelworks, and hundreds of my constituents work there. My aim throughout the rather tortuous and long saga about the future of the steelworks has been to ensure that their jobs are retained.

As the shadow Secretary of State outlined, the Bill could have been further improved, but I am delighted that we have at least reached a conclusion. There will be a sigh of relief among my many constituents who rely on the steelworks for their employment.

I look forward to engaging with the Minister as we move forward on the future of the steelworks—because, as I think he is well aware, if energy costs in particular stay as they are, there are future disasters ahead. We must do something on energy costs if we are to maintain any sort of a steel industry and heavy industry in the UK.

I thank the Minister for getting us to this point and look forward to working with him in the future.

[Chris McDonald]

I have listened carefully to the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks and those from the shadow Minister, and I will address them in a moment. I am grateful for the support of the Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), and of the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), both of whom are unable to speak in the debate as a result of their positions elsewhere in the House.

I opened by remarking on the constructive and careful consideration that the Bill has had in the other place; it is disappointing to see that the shadow Secretary of State is not taking the same approach. I will pick up a couple of the issues he raised. I am acutely aware of the position in which the previous Government left us, with uncompetitive energy prices for industry. If he had been attentive in some of the debates we have been involved in, he would be aware of some of the measures that I have taken to address that. Those include our energy-intensive scheme, increased relief on our supercharger scheme and our British industrial competitiveness scheme. I am determined to do more.

On tariffs, I am not saying that making the decision on tariffs was easy, but the shadow Secretary of State would clearly throw British industry to the mercy of dumped steel on the global market. We will not make that decision. He mentions coal for coking ovens. He may be unaware that there are no coking ovens in Scunthorpe. They were closed on his watch.

This Government are acting decisively and with purpose in the national interest, but the shadow Secretary of State is blinded by his ideological position on nationalisation. We believe that a steel industry, where necessary run by the Government and owned by the people, at least gives the opportunity to attract private sector investment. If the public interest test is met, that is the right thing to do. But if that does not convince the shadow Secretary of State, perhaps I can appeal to his sense of patriotism. I said on Second Reading that the England men’s football team had only ever won the world cup in a year when we had nationalised the steel industry. If he has any sense of duty towards our team and wishes them well, he should support nationalisation this time as well.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 18 agreed to.

British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

The Government are continuing to make progress on delivering their industrial strategy through publication of the response to a consultation on regulatory changes and scheme delivery for the British industrial competitiveness scheme.

BICS is the flagship policy of the industrial strategy that will address Britain’s longstanding competitiveness challenge in manufacturing. The policy will support heavy industry, advanced manufacturing and manufacturing supply chains.

Following the recent consultation, the Government confirm that they will proceed with planned changes to the renewables obligation, capacity market and feed-in tariffs to implement BICS.

The consultation response also confirms key aspects of scheme delivery, including certificate length, application windows, further eligibility requirements and an update on the delivery of the additional payment announced in April. These measures will help ensure that BICS delivers the greatest possible impact for businesses in Great Britain.

The Government will shortly be announcing the launch of an online eligibility checker tool. This simple, free-to-use tool will allow businesses to input basic information and receive an indication of their likely eligibility for BICS. It will be accompanied by comprehensive business guidance.

To support the timely introduction of BICS, legislation will be laid before Parliament in the autumn. Applications will open on 1 October and close on 30 November for year one of the scheme. Eligible businesses will receive support from April 2027, subject to applying within this window.

I encourage hon. Members to engage stakeholders in their constituencies to raise awareness of the British industrial competitiveness scheme and to invite businesses to use the eligibility checker in the coming weeks to assess their likely eligibility and then apply when applications open in October.

[HCWS200]

Ceramics Industry

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate. I am sure that those observing from the Public Gallery will have seen that there is huge support in Parliament for the ceramics industry, for its communities and for its jobs. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for securing the debate, and to Hayley for organising the petition. I am sure that many of the petitioners will have been following the debate and will have heard the support for the sector from Members, as well as from Ceramics UK and the GMB trade union.

There were a number of speeches on several issues, and I will endeavour to address them all, but if I could sum up the debate in one line, it was probably put most succinctly by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee): “Thank you for the £120 million —can I have some more?” To which I have a short answer: “You’re welcome—and I want to do more.” I will talk a bit about what that “more” might be, and address some of those issues, because I do recognise that more needs to be done.

It is important to recognise the pride of the communities we have heard about, because the ceramics industry is integral to the history and heritage of so many communities throughout the country. Staffordshire is the home of the ceramics industry, but it spans the whole country: we heard that it includes the china clay pits in Cornwall and extends right up to communities in the north of Scotland. There is also a diverse range of subsectors: bricks, pipes, tiles and tableware, of course, and advanced technical ceramics, with many applications in sectors such as energy, defence, medical and technology. I am most grateful today for the application of ceramics in air conditioning filtration systems—I thank the industry for that.

The ceramics industry is represented in some great traditional and heritage tableware. It is very much possible to value things not only for their utility but for their beauty, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher). I am quite a fan of traditional Staffordshire stoneware. I also have a very special Dunoon mug with a Union Jack on it, and I want to let those in the Public Gallery know that I use it every morning for my first cup of tea.

We heard about bricks from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), about the lifetime assessment of bricks. To be clear, I am very aware of the disadvantage in respect of bricks with a short lifetime assessment. I have bricks in my house that are over 200 years old and still doing sterling service. I am interested to hear more representations from Members throughout the House on that issue.

We have of course talked a lot about ceramics, but my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) made a much wider point about manufacturing in her area of the east midlands. The issues facing ceramics are also faced by manufacturing industries around the country: high energy costs, the import of cheap goods and challenges with decarbonisation. The challenges have been exacerbated by the geopolitical instability due to the invasion of Ukraine and the conflict in the middle east, which has put pressure on our energy prices.

The ceramics industry has continued to demonstrate resilience, and the people who work in the industry have demonstrated resilience, but I was very sad recently to learn of the closure of and job losses at Denby Pottery. I worked closely on that issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), and she represented the community so well in this place. There was also the closure of a tunnel kiln at Armitage Shanks. I pass on my personal sympathies to all the workers, families and local communities that were impacted by events at those firms, as well as at Royal Stafford and Heraldic Pottery.

Manufacturing has now ceased at Denby Pottery, and the administrators were unable to find a buyer. My officials at the Department for Business and Trade worked diligently with the administrators to take the process forward. The Government’s priority now is to ensure that all affected workers are given the support they need. I commend Fran, Kate and Daizy and wish them every success with their new venture. I realise that my words may sound somewhat clinical to the workers and communities who are so rightly proud of Denby, so I want to take this opportunity to say how sorrowful I am that Denby has closed and that those workers, and others in the local community, can no longer work there. That is why I am so determined that we will fix some of the problems with the underpinning of the business environment, not only for ceramics but for other parts of industry.

So many Members mentioned the ceramic industry support scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley thanked many people involved in the creation of that scheme—our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer played such an important role—but she was not able to thank herself, so I thank her on behalf of us all. I wonder whether the scheme would have been brought forward so speedily were it not for her work. It is important to recognise the scheme as a great vote of confidence by the Government in the ceramics industry. We are determined to work with the industry to provide support with decarbonisation, and I thank all my parliamentary colleagues who have advocated for it.

A number of Members raised issues relating to the design of the support scheme. My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) raised issues around eligibility, consultees and so on. I reassure them that we are determined that the scheme will have the maximum eligibility to enable firms to win support for both capital and operating expenses around their decarbonisation, and to make that decarbonisation makes sense as well.

This is perhaps an opportune time to firmly put down some of the myths around Government policy pushing up the price of electricity. Of course, that is not the case at all. After the previous Government, the UK was left in a position of high electricity costs, both for industry and for domestic consumers, because our electricity market is dependent on the price of gas.

The cheapest form of electricity we have is solar, the second cheapest is onshore wind and the third cheapest is offshore wind. That is why the Government’s clean power 2030 mission is designed specifically to give this country a strategic and competitive advantage in electricity price from the 2030s onwards. It is particularly challenging to manage the period from now to 2030, because during that period our electricity is still set to a great extent by the gas price. For economic reasons alone, and to ensure that we have a competitive business environment, we need to work through that.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I want to ask the Minister about the auction price that the Energy Secretary set today for offshore wind, which I understand is £120 per megawatt-hour. That sounds very high to me.

[Chris McDonald]

This replays some of the conversations we have had on the Floor of the House. Ultimately, it is important to remember that the prices we are quoting take into account both the capital and operating costs. Our existing gas fleet would also require renewal if it was to continue beyond the mid-2030s, so there would be a capital and operating cost element for that as well.

[Noah Law]

Does the Minister share my disbelief that the Tories continue to trot out the line that the Government are auctioning off wind power at a high price, while simultaneously neglecting to mention the levelised cost of electricity for thermal power, which is at least as high but takes a lot longer to deploy? Let us bust that myth once and for all.

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend put it exactly right. We need to take both capital and operating costs into account. Fundamentally, the issue comes down to a belief or view—or, in my case, looking at the economic evidence and corporate finance. Is it possible to decarbonise and reindustrialise? Yes, of course it is, and that is precisely what the Government want to do. No one in the industry is asking us to tear up climate policy—they are using the policy to invest, and have invested £100 billion since the general election on that basis.

Many people mentioned the supercharger scheme, which currently supports around 10% of the ceramics industry. Quite obviously, 10% is not 100%, but the recent uplift in the scheme to 90% compensation has benefited members. The British industrial competitiveness scheme will offer further support on advanced and technical ceramics from 2027, backdated to the current year. That will reduce electricity bills by up to £40 per megawatt hour.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Chris McDonald]

I will continue, but I will address a point that the right hon. Gentleman raised. He focused on the parts of the sector that are unable to electrify, which I am also very concerned about. Larger brick kilns and some sanitaryware items, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield spoke about in relation to his constituency, are difficult to electrify. The main decarbonisation options on the table are hydrogen, or biogas —that was not mentioned today but it could be a solution—but it is important that businesses remain competitive and able to raise capital until such a time as those occur.

I reassure the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge that I am focused on that issue. I am not pretending that processes that cannot be electrified can be, but the policy is to electrify first, where that can happen. However, I realise that I need to work with the brick sector and others. I am also concerned about capacity utilisation in the brick sector currently, which was mentioned by other hon. Members, because that situation, of course, makes everything much more difficult.

Many people talked about international trade. I presume that all hon. Members in the room are in favour of free trade on a level playing field basis; unfair trade was what was particularly referred to. That can be an issue of energy—overseas companies having access to energy from sources that we would not use in the UK, such as Russian gas—or, as we have heard about, some have inappropriate labour practices. When the Government decide to enter into a free trade scheme and liberalise tariffs we are always cognisant of the overall economic benefit to the country but, ultimately, we want free trade.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, asked about interaction with the Trade Remedies Authority, which is our means of correcting that. I am incredibly keen to continue to encourage the sector to engage with the Trade Remedies Authority. If there are any difficulties with that, I want to know about it.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Chris McDonald]

I will allow one more intervention.

[Gareth Snell]

Given that the Minister asked that he be informed of problems, the investigation process for calculating injury is incredibly arduous. In the last investigation, only two companies were able to take part in the process because of the bureaucratic and cost demands placed upon them. Simplifying the process for investigation would allow more companies to participate and provide evidence, which would make the TRA’s release more in line with what the sector and economy need.

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. The Trade Remedies Authority recently took some steps to try to speed up and reduce the cost of the process, but I understand that it is particularly difficult in a sector such as ceramics, in which there are so many small businesses—often, that is where a trade association might have a role. I will continue to work with the sector to understand the issues and to help, encourage and support companies to take cases to the Trade Remedies Authority where they feel that there are unfair trading practices. My hon. Friend thanked me in his speech for engaging with his private Member’s Bill, which I assure him I will continue to do.

The ceramics industry has faced great difficulties in the business environment, as have many of our manufacturing industries. I am sure that the Government’s measures to support the business environment will also support other parts of our manufacturing sector. Just as people in the potteries are proud to be potters, so people in other manufacturing areas in the country—

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Chris McDonald]

I will not detain Members for very much longer. Earlier, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned the former Prime Minister Harold Wilson and the many great things he did, one of which was his extremely strong focus on British manufacturing. The hon. Member for Lichfield talked about the opportunity we now have for reindustrialisation. Unashamedly, I lay claim to having recently introduced that word into the lexicon, and I am delighted at how quickly it has caught on.

However, I hope people might follow me if I introduce a few more words: increasing British productive capacity; improving British productivity; and increasing our exports and our balance of trade to improve our manufacturing competitiveness. That way, we can reindustrialise, we can provide good jobs for working people and we can put pride back into working communities around the country. In the case of the ceramics industry, I am very much looking forward to working with parliamentary colleagues to ensure that it continues to be a great British industry into the future.

Critical Minerals Programme

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

Today I am announcing the scope of the Government’s new £50 million critical minerals programme, first announced in the UK’s critical minerals strategy last year. In line with the strategy, this programme will help strengthen the UK’s supply chain resilience and security and support economic growth across the UK.

Critical minerals are essential to modern industry and to many of the growth-driving sectors identified in the industrial strategy, including clean energy, advanced manufacturing and defence. The Government’s strategy sets out clear ambitions to increase domestic production of critical minerals, boost recycling, and reduce our dependence on concentrated international critical mineral supply chains. This new programme is an important part of delivering against our ambitions and will complement wider Government support, including through the National Wealth Fund, UK Export Finance and other existing funding routes, as well as more competitive energy costs and streamlined planning and permitting to support industry.

The programme is structured around three pillars. First, we will provide up to £20 million for a magnet hub to establish a national facility to develop and support the scale-up of rare earth permanent magnet manufacturing capability in the UK, while also supporting skills and training in this specialised and crucial field. Secondly, we will provide up to £25 million through a critical minerals accelerator to support collaborative projects across extraction, processing and recycling of critical minerals, helping innovative businesses move towards commercial scale. Thirdly, we will take forward a demand aggregation platform, designed to help industry consolidate demand, unlock investment and secure supply through strategic partnerships.

Taken together, these measures will help grow domestic capability and optimise domestic production across the UK critical minerals value chain, harnessing our competitive advantage in recycling and midstream processing alongside our distinct pockets of mineral wealth. The programme aims to accelerate commercialisation, create high-value jobs, and attract investment in areas where the UK has these competitive strengths.

Further programme details and guidance will be published on gov.uk as the individual pillars open and progress. The magnet hub competition will be launched first, followed by the critical minerals accelerator, and market engagement on the demand aggregation platform later in the summer.

[HCWS129]

British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)]

I start by acknowledging the debt of gratitude that our country owes to our miners and our mining communities. I particularly wish to take this opportunity to note that this year marks the 75th anniversary of the Easington pit disaster, where on 29 May 1951, 83 men died following an underground explosion. I grew up in a mining village just down the road from Easington, and the shadow of that day hung over the community for decades. As a former member of the Easington colliery band, I remember players who were members of the band at that time telling me how they played at the funerals of all 83 men. It will be deeply sorrowful indeed at this year’s Durham miners’ gala to see the Easington colliery band and the colliery banner—no doubt with black drapes solemnly attached—process through the streets of Durham city.

I tell that story to make clear our thankfulness, and my own thankfulness, to those who laboured in our pits, their families and their communities, for they are my family and my community. I want to be clear that every penny in their pension scheme, whether it is the mineworkers’ pension scheme or the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, is theirs by right. The withdrawal of funds by previous Governments is an historic injustice, and one that I am determined to put right with the wholehearted support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In this, I am guided by the principle that we transfer as much of the money as possible as quickly as we possibly can to those in receipt of a pension, while also ensuring that sufficient funds are available to pay future pensions. It is in balancing those two aspects that I am currently in discussions with the trustees of both the British Coal staff superannuation scheme and the mineworkers’ pension scheme. I thank the trustees for their constructive and meaningful engagement on behalf of their members.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his understanding of these issues—which is a deep understanding—and his diligence in considering them. I also thank him for meeting me, along with the trustees of both the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. I hope the Minister will be around for a significant period of time to see this through at the Budget. I think it is very important that he remains in his place.

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for his good wishes. Perhaps I can return the favour by thanking the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and for Easington (Grahame Morris), who—along with the National Union of Mineworkers and its general secretary, Chris Kitchen—have been diligent representatives of the mineworkers, their families and their communities.

When British Coal was privatised in 1994, the British Coal staff superannuation scheme closed to the accrual of benefits, and remaining employees were given the right to participate in successor schemes. The Government of the day gave the mineworkers a guarantee that the value of the fund would not decrease, ensuring that pensions would continue to be paid while taking half of any surplus on the investment. The other half could be used to improve benefits through bonus payments. That surplus-sharing arrangement was ended in 2015, but future benefits were fixed, ensuring that pensions could be paid, with the aim of returning the reserve to Government in 2033. Since the 2015 changes, the scheme’s investments have performed well, building up a reserve of £2.3 billion.

Today, there remain almost 40,000 members of the scheme, the vast majority of whom are receiving their pension. Those 40,000 cover the full spectrum of those who contributed to Britain’s mining industry, from former pit workers and supervisors to clerical staff and canteen workers. As of 2024, the average age of members of the scheme was 78, although the hon. Member for Ashfield is obviously much younger than that. The group includes 11,000 widows, with an average age of 84.

As I have mentioned, we owe former mining communities a debt of gratitude for their contribution to national prosperity. We must acknowledge the hard work and sacrifice of coalminers who powered our country for decades. Previous Governments failed to ensure that former British Coal employees got the level of pension that they deserved. Earlier in this debate we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington, and he rightly said that in 2021 the then Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee looked at the mineworkers’ pension scheme and recommended that the Government took no further funds from the scheme, transferred the reserve to scheme members and reviewed the surplus sharing arrangements. The Conservative Government of the day declined to accept those recommendations, and I know that the hon. Member for Ashfield would not have agreed with that. While he was unable to persuade his colleagues at the time, he does not need to persuade Labour Ministers in this Government, because we are determined that these historic wrongs will be righted.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing this debate and thank him for his service down the mines. I say that as a coalminer’s daughter, and I put on record that I am proud of my dad for the work he did. The Minister mentioned the delays caused by previous Governments’ inaction. I am glad that this Government are acting, but every day former miners and mineworkers are passing away. Can he reassure those affected by this injustice in my constituency of Amber Valley that he is working as fast as possible to resolve this issue?

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, and it fits very much with the point I was making about the age profile. I assure her that I am acutely aware of how many miners, miners’ widows and other coal workers are dying every day and every week not in receipt of their pension entitlements. That is why I proceeded as quickly as I could with the initial arrangements for the British Coal staff superannuation scheme last autumn. With the co-operation of the trustees, we are proceeding at pace on both schemes.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for bringing forward this debate. He will know, because I have spoken to him before about this, that my father-in-law’s pit would fall within his constituency. My constituency of North West Leicestershire has about 2,200 coalminers, of whom a big majority are in the BCSSS. I am reassured by the Minister’s comments about making sure we get fairness. Can he say some more about how these decisions will be made, and how soon we can get fair justice for our miners?

[Chris McDonald]

Yes, I will say more about the work I am doing with the trustees and the timing, as my hon. Friend rightly requests. The Government are implementing the recommendations of the BEIS Committee report from 2021 in respect of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme and the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and we continue to provide a guarantee to the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, ensuring that scheme members’ pensions will always be paid after retirement. We have transferred the £2.3 billion reserve within the scheme for use as a bonus pension. This led to a 41% increase in pension incomes last December, backdated to November 2024. On average, that meant an extra £100 a week for scheme members, and I know that money will be spent in coalmining communities. That is direct support for pensioners and local communities that powered our country for decades.

I am clear, however, that there is still more to do. The Government are discussing proposals for future arrangements for the scheme, including the potential for future surpluses to be used to enhance the benefits for the trustees. The hon. Member for Ashfield asked me if I would commit to working with the trustees, and I can tell him simply: I will, and I am. On timing, he asked me whether the decision will be made at the Budget. I of course leave decisions at the Budget to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but she is incredibly supportive of the work that I am doing, and I place on the record her support for me in my work and for mining communities.

[Lee Pitcher]

The Minister talked earlier about putting the wrongs right, and those decisions that will be made in the future will hopefully do just that, but once that is done, we want to make sure that they are future-proofed for everyone, regardless of what happens in the future. Will the Minister also commit to ensuring that once those wrongs are put right, that will continue, whoever governs in the future?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. You have had more than one intervention, Mr Pitcher.

[Chris McDonald]

Like my hon. Friend, I sincerely hope that these changes will permanently right the wrongs. It is important that we think carefully about moving as much money as possible out of the scheme, but also ensuring that there are sufficient funds to pay existing pensions.

Let me briefly raise the issue of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. The Government are taking a similar approach to both schemes. In 2024 they transferred the mineworkers pension scheme reserve, increasing pensions by 32%, but I want to reassure members of that scheme that I am also considering proposals for future arrangements put forward by their trustees. Those proposals could further enhance members’ benefits, and we are seeking to do that as swiftly as possible, while also managing the future funding risks.

[Ian Lavery]

I should declare an interest, as probably the only deferred member of the mineworkers’ pension scheme left in the Commons. There is a perception that the Government treat the BCSSS differently from the MPS. There is a belief that some have received preferential treatment—better treatment than others. When the Minister is negotiating with the trustees from both parties, will he ensure that there is equality of justice, across the board, for members of both schemes?

[Chris McDonald]

I am extremely pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that issue, because I know that it concerns members of, particularly, the mineworkers’ pension scheme and people in those communities. I want to reassure members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme that I am endeavouring to ensure that we get as much money out of the scheme as possible. The issue of equality does concern me. However, I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that in the case of both schemes my aim has been to move as much money out as possible, as quickly as possible, for all those members.

I do not see this as a divisive issue between two parts of the mining community, because ultimately both parts of the mining community, whichever scheme they were in, were disadvantaged by Governments of the time. I will take forward the proposals from the trustees, which I hope will further enhance members’ benefits. I want to reassure my hon. Friend, and other members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, that my top priority is to reach agreement on how best to enhance these pensions as swiftly as possible, so that we can get that funding into the pockets of scheme members.

I opened my speech with some words about the Easington colliery disaster, and I mentioned the Durham miners gala. There is a miners memorial in Durham cathedral, and the words on that memorial are sung by the cathedral choir at the miners festival service on gala day every year, as they will be this year, in a few weeks’ time. I shall be there, playing in the cathedral with my band, and I thought that this might be a suitable moment for us to mark the Easington pit disaster ourselves, here in the House. So I simply say to Members:

“Remember before God the Durham miners who have given their lives in the pits of this county”.

Question put and agreed to.

British Steel

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

The Government committed to updating Parliament on British steel every four sitting weeks for the duration of the period of special measures being applied under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025.

The Government’s priority remains to maintain the safe operation of the blast furnaces at British Steel. Government officials are continuing to provide on-site support in Scunthorpe, ensuring uninterrupted domestic steel production and monitoring the use of taxpayer funds.

On funding, the position remains that all Government funding for British Steel will be drawn from existing budgets, within the spending envelope set out at the 2025 spring statement. To date, we have provided approximately £555 million for working capital, covering items such as raw materials and salaries. This will be reflected in the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for both 2025-26 and 2026-27.

Next steps

The Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill has completed its passage in the House of Commons and has entered the House of Lords. Given the information currently available to us, the Government are strongly minded to use the powers in the Bill to bring British Steel into public ownership in the future, subject to the public interest being satisfied and taking into account all the relevant facts at that time.

[HCWS122]

Private Sector Investment: Lancashire

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

I am incredibly grateful for the opportunity to close this debate on behalf of the Government. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for securing this debate on investment in Lancashire’s economy; there can be no doubt about her commitment to and passion for Lancashire. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Mr Foster), for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Redditch (Chris Bloore), who contributed so well to the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley said in her concluding remarks, she is a red rose, and I think that applies to all those who call the red rose county home.

I want to address as many of the specific issues raised as possible, but I will talk about some of the positive investments in Lancashire that the Government are supporting and that have been enabled by Government policy. I am sure that by this stage, everyone in the House will know that I grew up in the north-east of England, on the other side of the Pennines—I hope that will not be held against me in this debate. We share something very much in common with Lancashire: our recent history, at a time of deindustrialisation in both our regions, which undermined the culture of the proud people of the north.

I saw the effects of successive Governments who stepped back and allowed the slow and supposedly inexorable outsourcing of our industrial base to cheaper overseas markets. My hon. Friend talked about sectors such as advanced manufacturing and defence, and I know she will agree that that decline destroyed the landmarks, identity and culture of many industrial heartlands. What we have seen is that, as important as thriving services are, they work best when they are on top of a powerful industrial base of good, local jobs in manufacturing, engineering and key industries spread across the country.

[Mr Foster]

Leyland Trucks is now the only heavy goods vehicle manufacturer in the United Kingdom, and it is based in my constituency. Is it Government policy that we should be buying British? Does the Minister agree that the Government should support any orders for trucks through Leyland DAF?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising Leyland Trucks. He will be aware of some of the procurement advice changes this Government have made, because we are keen to support British industry particularly in areas relating to national security. Thanks to Government support, Leyland Trucks has invested in its assembly lines and is now capable of producing 30 electric trucks per shift for sale both here in the UK and on international markets. It is also building a fully integrated zero-emission battery electric road sweeper. That is funded in part by our DRIVE35 programme, which represents the biggest investment in our car industry since the second world war. Leyland Trucks is vital to our automative sector and the Government’s industrial strategy.

I could highlight some other great investments in Lancashire, including in aerospace, which we heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley in opening the debate. There are 6,000 jobs being supported at BAE Warton and Samlesbury, thanks to the Typhoon deal that the Government secured with Turkey last year and our wider Typhoon programme. Production and final assembly of each Turkish Typhoon fighter jet will take place at either Warton or Samlesbury as part of that deal. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is in Turkey as we speak, securing more trade opportunities for British industry.

In energy, Lancashire is also playing a critical role in making the UK a clean energy superpower, thanks in no small part to the strength of the nuclear sector in the county. Lancashire is already home to world-leading expertise located at the Springfields and Heysham power stations and we are building on these strengths. This Government are investing in nuclear power, working with the private sector with partners such as LS Electric, to progress an energy storage project at Widow hill. This is helping to balance the grid and keep energy supply stable as more renewable power comes online. I know that there is appetite to do even more in Lancashire, especially with the RedCAT low carbon technology commercialisation accelerator. It has been raised with me by Members previously and I know it is doing good work in bringing cutting-edge low carbon products to market. I am meeting members of the East Lancashire chamber of commerce and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) soon to discuss this initiative further.

Defence has of course been mentioned strongly, and we are all eagerly anticipating the publication of the defence investment plan, but in addition to the BAE sites I have mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley will be aware that Lancashire is part of the north-west cyber cluster. She mentioned that specifically in her requests for further information and I undertake to write back to her in relation to the six or seven points she raised in detail at the start of the debate.

The Ministry of Defence has made Blackpool and the Fylde College one of just five new defence technical colleges to bring employers across the defence sector together with young people from the area to ensure they can secure roles in engineering, in nuclear and in cyber-security. I know my hon. Friend shares my enthusiasm for creating opportunities for young people in defence, in energy and of course in advanced manufacturing.

In addition to this support, the Department is working with the Office for Investment and local partners to deliver the “Lancashire Growth Plan”, which I would certainly recommend Members from the area become familiar with and carry around Parliament and push under the noses of Ministers, because, as we have heard, growth does not just happen in cities, and not all the places that are classed as not urban are also not rural. That is a strong feature not only of Lancashire but many places in the north-east, including the place that I call home.

These are industrial areas centred around towns and it is good to see a strong pipeline of private sector investment coming forward across Lancashire. We have GVS Filter Technology’s recent £14 million low carbon manufacturing headquarters in Lancaster; a £100-million Eden Project in Morecambe, where Vinci has been appointed as the main contractor; and the Department for Business and Trade has thrown its support behind the recent investment announced by Budweiser, the official sponsor of the FIFA world cup 2026. I do not know whether I am allowed to point that out, but there we are. I believe my hon. Friend joined my ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), who is responsible for employment rights and consumer protection, in celebrating Budweiser’s £7.8 million investment.

There is another investment that I must mention. Mr Speaker is not here and is of course not able to speak on behalf of his own constituency, but Chorley is also benefiting from TVS Supply Chain Solutions, part of India’s TVS Group and a major UK employer. The group is planning to invest hundreds of millions of pounds in the UK, creating thousands more jobs, including in Chorley. I am aware that senior leaders met my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister during his recent India visit, which will help us secure nearly 7,000 new jobs from Indian investment in the UK.

[Leigh Ingham]

It was interesting to hear the Minister name a number of towns in relation to manufacturing roles. In our towns, we have on average 9% employment in manufacturing, whereas in cities, that figure is 4%. Does the Minister agree that in towns, if we really push our manufacturing sector, we can massively increase the number of good, unionised jobs available to people in those areas?

[Chris McDonald]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. More than that, in the towns I have described and, in fact, in the places across the country where there is manufacturing, it is usually the most productive employment—the most productive economic activity. Of course that is good for the economy, but it is also good for jobs, because the most productive employers offer the higher wages, certainly higher than would be available if those factories were not there. My hon. Friend is quite right; aspects of industrial policy that can centre more manufacturing in towns will provide better employment and improve the standard of living of people who live in those areas.

Boosting economies in those areas also needs to be linked to investment in infrastructure, which is why the northern growth strategy is important—it will ensure that the right transport and infrastructure is in place to attract that business investment. We are making upgrades to the west coast main line, equipping Lancashire combined county authority with £215 million of investment via the local transport grant to help councils deliver transport improvements, including bus lanes, cycleways and congestion-reducing measures for motorists. The Pride in Place programme, which has been mentioned, is providing £5.8 billion over 10 years to rejuvenate many places around the country, including six in Lancashire. We are targeting that investment in the places where it is most needed, breathing new life into high streets, parks and the public realm. Pride in Place funding is also supporting youth clubs, libraries, community grocers, cultural venues, health and wellbeing services, and other local initiatives that make a big difference to local areas, making them both better places to live and more attractive for private investment and the creation of jobs.

Significant work is under way to attract greater private sector investment in Lancashire. After years of Governments under-investing in and, frankly, overlooking industrial communities such as those in the north-west, we have acted decisively to drive growth and regeneration across the county. The reforms we have set out in our industrial strategy are making it easier for Lancashire’s key industries to invest, grow, and succeed in what is a fiercely competitive global market. Our Office for Investment is working hard to bring in more private domestic and international investors to support our high-export, high-productivity firms and back the places where people live.

We are ensuring that Lancashire is placed at the forefront of the Government’s growth mission, while ensuring that growth is seen and felt by local people in local communities. We are an active, interventionist Government, working to drive growth and investment in Lancashire, in the north-west and throughout the country. I am grateful for my hon Friend’s support in that effort, and I am committed to working with her and other Lancashire MPs to ensure we build on that momentum in the weeks and months to come. She said that she could wax lyrical about how wonderful Lancashire is, and indeed it is wonderful. She also said that she wanted to coax more people to Lancashire, and I am sure that with this debate, she has done just that.

Question put and agreed to.

Steel Tariffs

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on steel tariffs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

May I start by giving the apologies of the Minister for Trade, who is in Turkey, negotiating further trade deals for British industry?

On 19 March, the Government set out the UK’s plan to introduce a robust new trade measure from 1 July. It will limit tariff-free steel imports, as compared with the steel safeguard measure. Any imports above the levels in the measure will face a 50% tariff.

Protecting primary steel production is crucial to the UK’s critical national infrastructure and defence. That is why we have published a long-term plan for steel and are introducing a new trade measure countering the unprecedented and damaging effect of global overcapacity. It is simply wrong that only 30% of the steel that we need in the UK is made in the UK.

Steel is essential for advanced manufacturing and engineering, and the interests of the domestic steel sector and downstream industry are best served together. A thriving steel industry strengthens supply chain resilience for downstream businesses and limits their exposure to global supply shocks. We need to balance the need to protect domestic steelmaking with maintaining secure, reliable supply chains for downstream businesses.

Imports will remain important. The Government have engaged extensively with businesses across a range of sectors, including manufacturing, when developing this measure. Indeed, last week, I held a roundtable with downstream industry, together with my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. We, and the Secretary of State, also heard from several colleagues about the concerns of businesses in their constituencies. We are listening carefully to companies throughout the supply chain as we finalise the measure.

We have introduced a transitional arrangement; the new measure will not apply to goods under contract before 14 March 2026 and imported between 1 July and 30 September 2026. We have introduced a carry-over mechanism to give importers more flexibility. We will review the measure after 12 months to ensure that it remains fit for purpose.

We are also engaging intensively with the European Commission on our respective steel measures, and are working to find a bilateral solution that protects vital UK-EU steel trade. This engagement reflects the unique structure of our trading and security relationships and the interconnectedness of our supply chains, but we need to be clear: if we do not act, we will not have steel-making in the UK. The US, Canada, the EU are all acting; we must too.

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank the Minister for that statement.

Aerospace, the automotive sector, Formula 1, the construction sector, and manufacturing businesses that use steel, which employ 300,000 people, are all being impacted by Labour’s botched tariffs. Many specialist steels—the Minister may have heard this from manufacturing businesses—are not, as it stands, even produced in the UK. That is a real issue when it comes to, for example, categories 14 and 27, which are used in aircraft wings, or in defence applications that we need to make ourselves safe. Where defence companies have cost-plus contracts, the tariff on steel that is not made here will just get added to the bill for the Ministry of Defence.

Will the Minister listen to Stephen Morley, president of the Confederation of British Metalforming, who says:

“The UK risks accelerating the decline of its manufacturing base rather than preserving it”,

or Simon Boyd from REIDsteel, a British steelmaker, when he says that these measures will kill off

“downstream customers of steelmakers in the UK”?

I am sure that is not the Minister’s intention, but with just two weeks to go, with respect, it is time to stop listening and start acting.

Will the Minister answer three questions? First, will he confirm today that the measures will not be applied retroactively throughout the whole life of existing, agreed contracts? Secondly, will he exempt steel—especially in categories 14 and 27—that is simply not made here in the necessary volumes? Thirdly, after listening to industry, will the Government please delay these tariffs for at least six months so that they can get this right?

[Chris McDonald]

In line with your guidance about constructive debate, Mr Speaker, I am sure we will have some constructive debate now. The shadow Minister has raised some legitimate questions, and I am very happy to provide the answers.

I think we all recognise the importance of the steel industry and the downstream sector—there is definitely a point of agreement there. The point about timing is a critical one, and on the face of it, the request for a delay is not unreasonable. The important thing to recognise is that our steel safeguard measure expires on 30 July. It is not possible for us to extend that measure; it has lasted for eight years, and under World Trade Organisation rules we cannot extend it, so new measures are required. Of course, the EU is introducing a new measure on 1 July, and the US and Canada have also introduced new measures. If we were not to introduce a measure, the UK would become the global dumping ground for subsidised steel. That would be the end of our primary steel industry, so something needs to be done.

In designing the measures, we have been very careful to ensure that they are targeted at those steels that are made, or could be made, in the UK. However, the categories are quite broad, and we acknowledge that some steels that are not, and could not be, made in the UK could be swept up in them. That is the point of the quotas. Since our draft measures were published, we have consulted extensively with industry—I have known Steve Morley for a very long time, and I listen very carefully to what he says, but more than that, we have carried out extensive consultation. The Minister for Trade and I have met the downstream group on three occasions, and I have met the Aerospace Growth Partnership, the Construction Leadership Council and many other businesses. We will be publishing our final measures in line with our EU negotiations when they are completed, in time for 1 July.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

I am grateful for this urgent question. Today, I am publishing the Committee’s correspondence with Ministers after the roundtable we held with steel producers, expressing a very high degree of alarm that these measures were not in the right place and thousands of jobs are now at risk.

There is a loophole for the import of fabricated steel. Canada and the United States have both moved to close that loophole; there is a question about why we have not taken the same steps. Twelve months is too late. There are no exemptions for steel products that we do not make, as we have heard, and there is no clarity on the use of procurement to drive domestic production. It also appears that a number of the quotas have been set in the wrong place, so will the Minister look again at the advice the Select Committee provided and come back to the House urgently—within the next week—with some adjustments to help safeguard a brilliant industry with a brilliant future ahead of it?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for both his work and that of his Committee on this issue. I recognise the concerns that were raised in his Committee earlier this week. On the point about timing, though, while I recognise the uncertainty this causes for business, it is impossible for the Government to announce the final arrangements until our discussions with the EU have concluded. I am reliably informed by those people with knowledge of negotiations with the EU that these things tend to run to the wire, so while I appreciate that it creates uncertainty, we need to wait until that point. However, the feedback from industry about quota levels has been heard by Government, and we are looking at those quota levels. That was the point of publishing the draft measures in the first place.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The steel sector is a vital UK industry. We must support it in the face of numerous challenges, including China’s unfair practices and Trump’s trade war, but I am extremely concerned about the impact on parts of the steel industry supply chain if these proposed tariff changes are implemented. We all want businesses to buy British, but that is just not an option if there is no domestic supplier that can meet the grades and certifications that its customers require. Businesses simply cannot buy British, and will be punished by new tariffs as a direct result. The specialist steels needed by aerospace, defence and precision engineering are not made in this country in the grades or volumes that those sectors require, and qualifying a new source takes not a fortnight, but several years. The Government are already having sufficient difficulty funding their defence investment plan without loading additional costs on to the defence manufacturers. Tariffs on steels not available in the UK will materially damage downstream manufacturers, with serious implications for their competitiveness, as well as for investment and jobs.

What response did the Minister give experts in the manufacturing industry when they warned him about these matters? What conversations has he had with Tata Steel in determining the Government’s tariff position? Will he remove categories from the regime where no domestic production capability exists, such as product codes 14 and 27, which are critical for the viability of many aerospace and defence manufacturers? Will the Secretary of State commit to delaying or tapering implementation until proper mitigations have been put in place?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the hon. Member for her constructive engagement on this issue with me over the past few weeks. The nub of her question is, I think, about domestic suppliers and the availability of domestic supply. As I said, the measures have been designed to cover those steel categories that are made or could be made in the UK. She raises the particular issue of speciality steels. We all understand the position with Speciality Steel UK in Stocksbridge and Rotherham. That business is going through administration, and it was impossible for it to compete in the UK while there was an influx of subsidised steel.

The hon. Member asks about the conversations I have had with industry. I will tell her what I said to the Aerospace Growth Partnership. When I met it this morning, I said that clearly we would not want to start from this point, but that it is about choices. This Government have decided that we want to have a full aerospace supply chain, including our own speciality steels production. That is a different choice from the one that the previous Government made when they were approached by industry, offering to co-invest in that site and keep it open. They rebuffed all those responses, because their view was, “Leave it to the market, let the steel plants close.” We are making a different choice.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

As the Minister knows, I represent Llanwern, which produces galvanised steel. I repeat my ask to the Minister to be mindful of the impact of the scale of the allocations for non-EU countries on Llanwern. Will he continue to liaise directly with Tata and the unions on this issue?

[Chris McDonald]

I am particularly concerned about the allocations for galvanised steel, as my hon. Friend says, particularly given the country’s reliance on the ZODIAC galvanising line in Llanwern. That is a critical part of our steel and our national infrastructure. It is the only process route that we have to make car auto body and various construction and coating steels. A lot depends on that plant, and I am considering the issue seriously.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Engineering firms in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire are integral to automotive and aerospace supply chains, so how can it be right or in the national interest that they pay a tariff of 50% on the steel they import and use, while European producers making those parts with the same steel pay low or no tariffs?

[Chris McDonald]

I have just been alerted to the fact that I said the current measures will expire on 30 July. It is actually on 30 June. It was hopefully correct in the context, but I am happy to correct the record. On the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman, these measures are clearly designed to support primary steel production. That is their purpose and what they have been designed for. It is about getting the balance right so that we support that level of primary production in the UK while dealing with the issues with the downstream steel producers so that they can get the steels they need within the UK or perhaps more broadly within the EU, as we discuss our market arrangement measures with it.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

We all support greater production here in the UK, but the details of these tariffs need more work. Black Country MPs, such as me and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), have heard huge worries from our downstream industries, including stockholders such as Amari, fabricators such as Angle Ring, and trade associations such as the British Constructional Steelwork Association and the Cast Metals Federation. Will the Minister go away and review the details? We need protections for fabricated steel, like those Canada and the US have in place. Once again, we are seeing projects in receipt of massive public funding importing fabricated steel. We need a detailed look again at the categories and the quotas. We need proper consultation with UK Metals Council members, and we need to look at the detail again to ensure that it is right and that it supports a great future for manufacturing in the Black Country and elsewhere.

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for the strong work that she has done advocating for businesses in her area. Across the whole west midlands, there has been strong support from west midlands Members of Parliament for their businesses, and quite right too. She may recall from the roundtable discussion we had with the Secretary of State and the Minister for Trade earlier this week that her concerns are being heard and taken into account, and I want to reassure her about that. I neglected to mention earlier the engagement we have had with the British Constructional Steelwork Association, which she mentioned. I reassure her that I and my officials are talking to the BCSA, too.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Minister says that the concerns about fabricated steel are being taken into account. Can he be a bit more specific about why other countries have protections for fabricated steel in their economies, but we do not yet have any in ours?

[Chris McDonald]

I can give a specific example, if that would be helpful. A number of Members have mentioned the specific situation in Canada, for instance, and I have looked carefully at the situation there. Fundamentally, it has a completely different tariff regime, which would not necessarily be straightforward or legal to apply in the UK. However, I continue to look at that. I reiterate the point that this measure is designed to support the steel industry. If other concerns fall outwith that, they need to be raised and dealt with appropriately.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

May I add my voice to that of other Black Country Members? On behalf of Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton, I am grateful to the Minister and the Department for Business and Trade for their ongoing engagement with me and local businesses. It is much appreciated, but can I also add my voice to those calling for a review of quotas? In some places, those have been reduced by more than 80% on products not currently produced here. Equally, we have fabricated products being imported that are not subject to any tariffs, which could impact on local downstream supply chain industries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend not just for her question, but for the invitation to visit Stourbridge and have this discussion with businesses in her constituency. I am looking forward to that, and I thank her. To reiterate the point that I made about the quotas, the Government have published draft quotas and we are engaging in consultation. We listen carefully to her representations and those of others, but the final quotas, when they are published, will ultimately be dependent on that consultation and the negotiations we are having with the European Union.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

I am greatly concerned by this issue. I spoke in the consideration of the steel Bill, and I raised the concerns of some of my businesses. The Minister rightly said that the measures expire on 30 June, but there is less than two weeks to go and huge amounts of uncertainty. Businesses are having to stock up on that steel, so costs are already going up. How did the Government let this happen? Did the impact assessment not show that there would be a huge impact on steel? What will happen next?

[Chris McDonald]

As I mentioned to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the Chair of the Select Committee, I am sympathetic about the uncertainty. It is a difficult position for businesses to be in. To be clear, the reason for the uncertainty is that the publication of the final measures is dependent on market access negotiations with the European Union. It is to be expected that the negotiations with the European Union will go very close to the deadline.

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

UK steel sector voices and Cabinet officials met to back procurement of British-made steel at Tata Steelpark in Wednesfield, rather than in offices in Whitehall, which I welcome. I also met Walsall Wheelbarrow, a family-owned business started by Fred Thacker in 1939. It is the only UK manufacturer of wheelbarrows left in the UK. Will the Minister look at ensuring that imported steel that cannot be made in the UK remains tariff-free?

[Chris McDonald]

The design of the steel measures, because of the different steel grades, means that the combined nomenclature codes fall into large buckets, so although the Government have targeted the measures at steels that are or could be made in the UK, some that are not or could not be made in the UK end up being caught up in the measures. That is the point of the quotas. It is important that we ensure that those quotas are in the right place, including for businesses such as Walsall Wheelbarrows. I have slightly lost count of the number of wheelbarrows that I have, but I will be sure that the next one I buy is from Walsall.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

From Yeovil’s cutting-edge defence manufacturers to Thorn Wood Forge, which makes hand-crafted tools in Hinton Saint George, businesses in my constituency need steel that is currently not produced here. A 50% tariff would be disastrous. Will the Minister commit himself to exemptions for specialised steel grades that are not made in this country at the scale and spec needed by businesses in Yeovil?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman and I have engaged significantly on the industrial base in Yeovil, and I know how important it is to his local community. This takes us back to the point about steels that are or could be made in the UK. The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman and by many other people primarily involves the Speciality Steels plant. When we designed the trade measures, we were expecting a very quick move into new ownership, but it has taken about seven months longer than expected, and I am aware of the concern that that is causing businesses. I am, however, unapologetic about our determination to create the right market conditions, so that the production of speciality steels in the UK is a viable business proposition.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

It is absolutely right in principle for the Government to try to defend the steelmaking sector, particularly Liberty at Stocksbridge and Rotherham. However, there are downside implications for smaller firms, particularly manufacturing firms such as Ansell Handtools, Special Steel Group and Crown Hand Tools in my constituency, all of which have said that they cannot buy precisely the steel that they need, or the quantities of steel that they need, from British manufacturers. That is the challenge. I know that the Minister has been doing a great deal of work on this; can he tell me how he will leave a channel open for concerns to be raised by those companies if the further measures that he has taken do not address their particular grievances?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. May I ask the Minister to keep his responses short? Back Benchers should keep their questions on point as well?

[Chris McDonald]

I will endeavour to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me say to my hon. Friend that I will do exactly what I have done since the day these draft measures were announced: engage with Members on both sides of the House and with all businesses. I hope Members will feel that I have endeavoured to do that. We have had had cross-party discussions and I have had many meetings with businesses, trade associations and individual colleagues, and I am determined to continue to do so.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

The real reason for the rise in the steel problem is the energy price—the input price. Has the Minister had any challenging conversations with his colleague the Secretary of State, and will he consider exemptions for the defence industry as well? As he knows, the new Defence Secretary is now trying to balance a very difficult budget, and I am sure he would be happy to do what he can to help.

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that link with defence. I know that he cares about it deeply, as I think we all do, but that has not really come out until now. He also mentioned energy. As he will know, we increased the supercharger rebate from 60% to 90%, and the British industrial competitiveness scheme will come into force next year—but there will be a refund for this year as well. That will affect many of the downstream businesses. However, I believe—as, I am sure, does the right hon. Gentleman—that the crucial point about defence is that we need the capability to make aerospace deals in the UK, and our measures are designed to ensure that that happens.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The imposition of tariffs on black-painted and zinc-painted steel banding—products that are not manufactured in the UK, and are therefore imported from the EU—and the scramble for quota at the beginning of the year will increase costs for our steel producers, and will have a serious impact on importers’ cash flow. Will the Minister look at the tariffs again and do all that he can to ensure that those particular tariffs and quotas do not go ahead?

[Chris McDonald]

This issue, which my hon. Friend has raised with me before, relates primarily to category 4 products. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) earlier about the importance of that in Llanwern. I am very concerned about category 4, and it is one of the issues that I am looking at.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Northern Ireland manufacturers—and, indeed, metal traders—who rely on those specialist grades, including stainless steel box section, are already impacted by EU tariffs, and the additional tariffs being imposed by the Government will have an adverse effect on those manufacturing sectors in Northern Ireland. What consideration will the Government give to them?

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on exactly the issue with which the Government are dealing at the moment, which is the interaction between our own measures and our own market and the EU measures and the EU market, and the market access that we can negotiate between the two. Unfortunately, that is the issue that is causing uncertainty for businesses such as those that he mentioned.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister has mentioned the negotiations with the European Union. The elephant in the room is the fact that we would not be in this position if we had not left the European Union on the terms negotiated by the last Government, which has left us isolated and vulnerable to trade wars of this kind. The British Chambers of Commerce says that this is

“self-inflicted damage to the economy”,

given that

“sectors rely heavily on imported steel”.

What lessons is the Minister taking from that, and from his conversations with his colleagues as they negotiate our future relationship with the European Union? We need to sort out not just matters such as the carbon border adjournment mechanism, but a sector-by-sector deal to help our British businesses in the future.

[Chris McDonald]

I am afraid that I am the ultimate pragmatist. I would not have wanted to start here, but starting here, I am determined that we will do the best we can.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

The Minister is right to point to the uncertainty that businesses are facing, and my constituents and local businesses repeat that message to me regularly. The Minister has indicated that there may be a chance that some of the tariffs or the categorisations will be changed. Will he undertake to come to the House and make a statement as soon as that is announced?

[Chris McDonald]

As soon as the measures are finalised, the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), will want to report them to the House in the usual way.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

This week I hosted a meeting between officials from the Department for Business and Trade and representatives of Hanson Springs, a brilliant family manufacturing business in my constituency that exports across the world and whose specialised products are made from steel. I thank the Minister for his personal interest in the case. My I urge him to ensure that nothing the Government do, particularly in those negotiations with the EU, will harm brilliant British businesses such as Hanson Springs?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend and Hanson Springs for their interaction with my officials. I know that the specific issue of 13 or 14-metre lengths of rod is a problem for him, but I can assure him that in all our negotiations, whether with the EU, India, Turkey or the United States, this Government are putting British industry first.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Minister says that the Government are listening to the concerns of businesses. May I be so brazen as to suggest that we need action and need it urgently, given the timescale of these changes—changes that will cripple steel-using businesses across the manufacturing, construction and infrastructure sector in my constituency, which have no domestic steelmaking industry in Northern Ireland on which to rely? Will the Minister meet businesses from Northern Ireland as a matter of urgency to discuss the devastating impact that this will have?

[Chris McDonald]

I shall be happy to meet businesses in Northern Ireland, as I have met businesses throughout the United Kingdom.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

This issue has raised a great many concerns in my constituency and across the Black Country. I have been working closely with my colleagues in Sandwell in particular, and we have had many meetings with local companies and communication with my hon. Friends the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) and for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes).

Hadley Industries, a large employer, is already considering downscaling its number of employees. Pargat Housewares in my constituency, another large employer, is a significant manufacturer of pots, pans and bakeware—in fact, it is one of the largest manufacturers in the UK, supplying most of our superstores and exporting. However, steel suitable for kitchenware is not manufactured in the UK in significant quantities and at competitive prices. What advice would the Minister give you give companies that are facing a 60%—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

I am familiar with the issue of kitchenware, which is very similar to some of the other issues that have been raised. If a particular kind of steel falls within a tariff area, not because it is made or could be made in the UK but because it is grouped in that way as part of the trade measures, the quota is designed to resolve that. If the business in question feels that there is a problem with setting the quota, I ask my hon. Friend to write to me. Alternatively, representatives of those businesses could come and meet my officials.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. If Members have prepared a long question, I suggest they cross most of it out.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

On Monday my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) asked the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), about the impact of these new steel tariffs on the defence investment plan. His answer was not particularly clear, which surprised me, given the strong representations that both he and I will have had from the Plymouth Manufacturers’ Group. What conversations have the Minister and his colleagues had with the Ministry of Defence about the impact of tariffs on the DIP, and will he agree to meet me and the Plymouth Manufacturers’ Group?

[Chris McDonald]

I should be happy to meet the hon. Lady and representatives of businesses in her area. As the Minister for Industry, I am responsible for ensuring that we have adequate productive capacity to defend the nation, and in that respect these steel measures will provide the steel that we need for defence.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his personal engagement on this matter. As he knows, time is of the essence. Businesses are already telling me that they are cancelling orders, and that these quotas and tariffs create uncertainty. I cannot understand why we would put tariffs on our own British businesses when they cannot obtain the size and grade of steel that they need, and that includes non-speciality steel in categories 1 and 7. Will the Minister apply tariff exemptions when there is no ability to buy British?

[Chris McDonald]

There are issues with category 1, and I am looking at that. As I mentioned before, the uncertainty is unfortunate, but my hon. Friend will understand why it is there. I am aware that some businesses have been told by their stock holders that all their steels will be subject to a tariff, but that is not always the case. I can be generous and say that stock holders are perhaps also suffering some uncertainty and want to protect their own businesses, but I ask them to look very carefully at the codes. If they need some help with that, my officials stand ready to support them.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Firms such as Hewland Engineering in Maidenhead face a 50% tariff on their specialist steel, but there is no approved British supplier to make the grades they need. That is not a steel strategy, but a tax on British manufacturing. I know the Minister understands their concerns, so will he go further and exempt categories for which there is no realistic British manufacturing or supply?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

I can go further than understanding and offer some practical advice, if that is helpful. The first thing to check is whether the steels that the hon. Member mentions are made, or could be made, in the UK—the “could be made” is important. He is shaking his head, so I assume that they are not made in the UK but are caught in a category group simply because the groups are so broad, and they might represent a small part of that group. That is the purpose of the quota. If the hon. Member’s businesses feel that the quota is too small for their needs and for other businesses in the sector, they should urgently get in touch with me.

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

Local manufacturers in Huddersfield have raised real concerns with me, particularly about the unintended consequences of this policy, the lack of a level playing field for raw materials and finished imports, and uncertainty around supply. Some are already seeing cost inflation in key steel outputs. Can the Minister please look at these matters again? Categories 14 and 27 have also been raised with me, and we must communicate better with our local companies.

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend mentions categories 14 and 27, and perhaps her businesses could share their views with me. She says that we must communicate better. I am absolutely determined to communicate as much as possible, so if she gets her businesses to get in touch with me and my officials, we will take their representations into account.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

That is exactly what I did on behalf of my constituent Paul Kenchington: I wrote to the Secretary of State about the specialist steel that he uses, and I have not had a reply. Why can the Minister not say today that, until we are producing this steel ourselves, he will exempt from these tariffs all the steel that is not currently made in this country? It must be simple to do that.

[Chris McDonald]

If it was simple, we would do it. Of course, it is not that simple, because, as I have described, the category groupings for steels are much broader than individual grids. There are 20-odd categories, covering a whole range of grids, and that is why the quota size is particularly important. If there are issues with the quotas, we must deal with them. The hon. Gentleman says that he has not had a reply to his letter, for which I apologise on behalf of the Secretary of State. I can assure him that I will get my officials to look into that immediately.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

In my constituency, Xtreme Stainless builds exhaust systems and would always want to buy British steel. The company believes it is better made, and wants to back British jobs and manufacturing, but the owner is watching firms get around the tariffs by sending finished products to the UK, which undermines British manufacturers. Could the Minister please tell me what the Government are doing to close the gap so that the tariffs protect the whole supply chain, not just the first step of it?

[Chris McDonald]

The issue there is category 14, because we want to protect the stainless production that we have in the UK. I am not particularly familiar with exhaust systems manufacturing, but it largely uses flat stainless steel, which we do not make in the UK. As I mentioned, it is about making sure that we have a sufficient quota for that business, so that it does not need to pay the tariff. If my hon. Friend could share the information with me, I would be very grateful.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

May I ask about jobs? I appreciate that the Minister has answered a lot of questions about tariffs, but a lot of my constituents work in Trostre, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith). We have talked a lot about the £2.5 billion steel fund. Nearly two years later, sites such as Trostre are still waiting, with no commitments, no timelines and no certainty on investment. No answers were found in the steel strategy, which was published in March. Can the Minister give me a straight answer on when Welsh steel sites will see investment from the steel fund?

[Chris McDonald]

I can indeed give a straight answer. Welsh steel sites will see money from the steel fund when the businesses that own them make a successful application for the money. Some £1 billion of the fund currently sits in the National Wealth Fund, awaiting such proposals. Tata Steel is particularly relevant to Trostre. I cannot say whether there is a project under consideration for Trostre, but I do know that Tata is bringing forward ideas. If the hon. Lady would like to talk to colleagues at Trostre and Tata Steel, they may well be able to share any ideas with her.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for recently meeting me to discuss my two brilliant downstream steelmaking companies in Monmouthshire, CMF and STAPPERT. Can I ask him to look at their cases again? If he is meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden)—my constituency neighbour—at Llanwern, perhaps he could consult these two companies and hear exactly what their issues are.

[Chris McDonald]

I do not think I have a visit to Llanwern in the diary, but perhaps I will do soon enough. I am certainly happy to take another look at those cases. If there is an opportunity for my officials to have a discussion with the businesses, I would be very happy to set that up.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I recently met Littlewood Fencing, a company in my constituency that makes specialist fencing for secure and sensitive locations, and it is facing crippling increases in costs. It might be noble to try to save jobs in the steel industry, but if jobs are lost in other parts of our economy, we are not really achieving anything. It is all about the rate of change that the Government are seeking to introduce. It is clear to many Members of this House that the rate of change currently proposed is not right. Will the Minister rethink and, if necessary, pause to ensure that we do not lose jobs in constituencies like mine in order to save jobs in other parts of the country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the issue that we are all grappling with: how we manage the transition. I recognise the importance of the business in his constituency producing secure fencing. There is a supply chain in the UK that could support that, leading from British Steel through the wire drawers, but he is right: it is about managing the transition. Unfortunately, we have a hard stop at the end of this month, and we need to put something in place beyond that and manage it over the course of the next few years.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

FMC and Dynamic Metals, both of which are in my constituency, have no alternative but to import specialist steel, because if it is not made in Britain, they cannot buy in Britain. What message does the Minister have for those businesses, and will he look at changing harmonised system codes so that customs can better distinguish between generic and specialist steels?

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend puts her finger on a particular problem: the grouping together of various steels in the measures, which I recognise is an issue. As I have mentioned before, the quota is designed to solve the problem. I would appreciate it if she could share the issue with my officials; tonnage grade product specification is particularly helpful. It would be very helpful if she could share those details.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Like other Members, I have met businesses in my constituency that will be severely impacted by what is being proposed in agriculture, and they do not want to put additional costs on farmers, who are already struggling. In one of his earlier answers, the Minister said that the overall strategy of trying to increase steel production is progressing more slowly than he would like—I think he said it has taken seven months. How long does he think these changes are going to be in place?

[Chris McDonald]

There are two things there. Our steel strategy said that we had an ambition to increase domestic steel production from 30% to 50% of market share. I have mentioned that the Speciality Steel sale has been delayed by a few months, but that component of the UK steel market is not the largest part. There are about 1 million tonnes of capacity there, whereas British Steel and Tata Steel each produce about 3 million tonnes. I realise that we are talking about different grades, but to answer the hon. Lady’s specific question: the overall capacity issue is very much about those two larger companies.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I fully support the need to buy British, but companies such as Springmasters, KM Products and Accurate Laser Cutting Ltd—all of which are based in Redditch—cannot source the grade and size of steel required for their machines entirely from the UK; in fact, most comes from the EU. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of my local businesses to hear their suggestions about how we can protect local businesses but also meet the good intention of this Government to support British steel?

[Chris McDonald]

I am aware of the challenges for spring steel businesses. Spring steels are incredibly difficult to produce and use high-quality, high-value steel. They are clearly within the capability of Speciality Steel, but the business is not operating. Given the number of requests for meetings, we might do a roundtable or something similar, but there will certainly be an opportunity for my hon. Friend to speak to officials. Perhaps we can get together with the Minister for Trade.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Prototype Productions in Long Crendon, Gibbs Gears in Stoke Mandeville and Aircraft Materials in Stokenchurch are all businesses in my constituency that categorically rely on grades of steel not made here in the United Kingdom. We have heard countless examples from around the Chamber of such businesses in other parts of the country. I have heard the Minister say “if” there is a problem with quotas; I would put it to him that there quite clearly is a problem with quotas. As we approach this cliff edge, I urge him, as so many others have, to stop, pause and ensure we get this right, or jobs will be lost.

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Member talks of tool steels. As I have said, this is about steels that are made or could be made in the UK. Clearly, for the steel businesses to be profitable, we need to—[Interruption.] Well, the phrase “could be made” is actually quite important, because the Speciality Steel business was unable to compete with subsidised steel coming in from China. If the Opposition say they want our steel strategy set by the Chinese Government, that would be why our steel industry is in the position it is. I am sympathetic to the calls from UK businesses to manage the transition, and I am trying to do that. Understandably, however, I do not believe that our steel strategy should be set by the Chinese Government.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Although I do not sound quite like the distinguished Minister, I did in fact grow up in Teesside in sight of the mighty Redcar works, which closed in 2015 with the loss of 2,000 jobs. The Conservative party did not stop that. Does the Minister agree that we finally have a Government acting to protect our steel industry?

[Chris McDonald]

As my hon. Friend knows, I very much have an emotional attachment to that plant, having worked there myself, and what he says is right. We can contrast the situation in 2015 with the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill that we are passing—opposed every step of the way by the Opposition—and the action we are taking on Speciality Steels. When the plant he refers to closed, I was in the business of looking for a buyer, and I was told by the Conservative Government that I had just 10 days; we have given months of support to Speciality Steels, and we are determined to see that process through.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

North Norfolk businesses, including PSS in North Walsham, have written to me to share their concerns about these tariffs. One thing that has been raised is that there are tariffs on raw materials, but not on the import of finished and machined products. This creates a bit of a perverse incentive to move manufacturing abroad, only to then re-import it and undercut British manufacturers. Has the Minister considered this unintended consequence, which could harm businesses in North Norfolk and elsewhere?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

Yes, I am concerned about that. As I have said, these measures are primarily about supporting the production of steel in the UK. I do not know if this is specific to the business mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but many of the businesses we have heard about rely on supply from the EU, and that is where our discussions with the EU—linking discussions, essentially—are so critical.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

While I am grateful for the Minister’s engagement, I think both he and the House are learning the dangerous domino effect that begins when we start mucking about with tariffs. I find it unbelievable that I am placed in the position, as somebody who believes in free trade, of urging him to consider consequential tariffs on the fabricated products with which businesses in my constituency are competing in a desperate attempt to hold on to at least domestic markets, given that international markets will evaporate. My question is this: he has said that he is going to review whatever emerges at the end of this process after 12 months, but the impact will be immediate, so could he please review it after one month?

[Chris McDonald]

The right hon. Member is quite right that there is a 12-month review. I thank him for his engagement, particularly with Stannah Stairlifts, but also for his further suggestions to me privately about how we might manage the transition. I want to reassure him that I am looking very carefully at the ideas he has raised.

To be clear about this, I think everyone in this House believes in free and fair trade, and we all wish we lived in a world where there were no tariffs. UK Steel has welcomed these measures, but has also said it would prefer it if there were not any tariffs. Unfortunately, this is the product of the world we are in. I do not think this is “mucking about with tariffs.” Essentially, we are responding to the global trading situation, and trying to ensure we have a strategy for a viable UK industry.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Sir John Whittingdale, who, after hearing the answer, may wish to get into the private Members’ Bills queue.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Indeed. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can Minister state what assessment he has made of the grades of steel that are simply not produced in this country? What is his message to companies such as C&M Precision Ltd in my constituency, and all those mentioned this afternoon, that face an immediate increase in their costs, because they have absolutely no alternative except to import their steel?

[Chris McDonald]

The Government have done a very detailed assessment of the steels that are not made and could not be made in the UK. Unfortunately, because of how the categorisations are set, some steel grades are swept up in a tariff measure along with other steels that are made in the UK. The quotas are designed to deal with that, so this is really about getting the quota level right, and that is very much part of the discussion we are having today—but I do understand the problem.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

For Northern Ireland, there is both a key sovereignty question and a key economic question. Because of the iniquity of our being subject to EU law, we are already under EU tariffs when it comes to steel imports and quotas, paying 25% once we cross the quota. I have a simple question: can the Minister assure my steel importers that the writ of the United Kingdom will govern their imports, not the writ of the foreign EU?

[Chris McDonald]

The trade arrangements for Northern Ireland will be the same for steel as they are for anything else. I have already committed to meeting businesses in Northern Ireland, and if the hon. and learned Member has businesses in his constituency that would like to join that meeting, from my perspective they would be most welcome to join it.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

We have talked about large and small businesses being affected, but my constituent Joe, who is a sales director in an SME likely to be affected, is deeply concerned about his livelihood. I have a very simple question for the Minister: if he is taking on board industry feedback, will he publish detailed information on safeguard quota allocations and anticipated utilisation rates before those measures come into place on 1 July?

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Member is right to bring this conversation back to the people involved in the industry. We have had a lot of discussion about steel and quotas and so on, but this is very much about people, and about the steel communities and communities, such as those in the Black Country, where there are lots of downstream users. The Government will of course publish the details as soon as they are available, but as I have said, that is very much dependent on our concurrent negotiations with the European Union.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

A specialist manufacturer in my constituency employs 26 people designing and fabricating foundation tooling systems used in piling and construction across the country. None of the steel it needs can be sourced in the UK. Can the Minister explain how a policy that taxes raw materials but exempts imports of fabricated products does anything other than make British fabricators less competitive than international rivals?

[Chris McDonald]

I referred to exactly that point earlier, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman could share that with the company concerned. If it needs a steel that is not made or could not be made in the UK but has been swept up because it is part of a larger product categorisation, we need feedback about the level of quota in relation to the tonnage it would normally purchase. If it is involved in piling, I imagine the tonnage could be quite high. It would be very helpful if that information could be shared with me.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The Minister has repeatedly referred to steel that “could be made” in the UK, but these tariffs come in in two weeks’ time. That is of no use to the manufacturers I have spoken to in North West Norfolk, where grade specification and volumes are simply not available. Why are the Government failing to recognise this, and why will they not guarantee that tariffs will not apply where people cannot get the steel in the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

Perhaps I could address the point about the phrase “could be made”, which I think is at the nub of what the hon. Member is saying. The issue here is latent capacity in the UK. Some of that steel could be made at an existing steel plant that stretches its product range, but that is not the primary concern for me. This is about latent capacity, which is where we have steel capabilities in the UK that are not operating due to unfair competition from overseas. Fundamentally, we have to make a decision to correct a market failure to ensure that those businesses are investable for the private sector and are profitable, can operate, and can deliver those products to the market.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister will be aware that Northern Ireland operates a dual market economy, relying on the same supply base in GB and the Republic Ireland for structural steel sections. GB buyers are aggressively competing for the same limited pool of steel, making steel sourced from GB or imported directly from Northern Ireland substantially more expensive. How can the Minister ensure that Northern Ireland has access to safe and affordable steel when the odds are clearly stacked against us?

[Chris McDonald]

I want to reassure the hon. Member that I am concerned about the issue in Northern Ireland. In fact, just this morning I had a discussion about this with Short Brothers—I know he is a strong advocate of that business in this House—and I am giving careful consideration to the impact on Northern Ireland.

Bills Presented

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Desmond Swayne presented a Bill to make provision about support for infants, parents and carers of infants, and prospective parents and carers, including provision relating to assessment of needs and to reporting requirements relating to such support; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 13).

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Lauren Edwards, supported by Kit Malthouse, Mr Peter Bedford, Josh Babarinde, Andrew George, Kim Leadbeater, Peter Prinsley, Dr Simon Opher, Jess Phillips, Dr Marie Tidball, Siân Berry and Liz Saville Roberts, presented a Bill to allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 14).

Heritage Public Houses Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mike Wood presented a Bill to require local authorities to maintain a register of heritage public houses in their area and to make provision in connection with the compilation and maintenance of such registers; to make provision relating to planning applications in respect of public houses on such a register; to make provision about the listing of heritage public houses; to make further provision relating to heritage public houses; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 15).

Homes and Planning Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Andrew George, supported by Mr Clive Betts, Gideon Amos, Hannah Spencer, Mr Lee Dillon, Caroline Voaden, Ben Maguire, Steve Darling, Grahame Morris and Steff Aquarone, presented a Bill to make provision about the availability of social, affordable, and intermediate market homes; to make provision about the powers of local authorities and local planning authorities in relation to homes and planning; to make further provision in relation to homes and planning; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 16).

First Cousins (Prohibited Relationships) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Dr Luke Evans, supported by Mr Richard Holden, Claire Coutinho and Mrs Kemi Badenoch, presented a Bill to prohibit the marriage of first cousins; to prohibit civil partnerships between first cousins; to prohibit sexual activity between first cousins; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 17).

Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir John Whittingdale, supported by Tom Tugendhat, Alex Sobel, Alicia Kearns, Damian Hinds, Gregory Stafford and Mims Davies, presented a Bill to make provision about the use of litigation to suppress freedom of speech.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 18).

Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Jessica Toale presented a Bill to make provision about domestic abuse protection orders; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 19).

Emergency and Life-saving Skills (Schools) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst, supported by John Cooper, Bradley Thomas, Sarah Bool, Joe Robertson, Alison Griffiths, Lincoln Jopp and Rebecca Smith, presented a Bill to require the teaching in schools of skills relating to emergency situations, including life-saving skills; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 20).

Ceramics (Country of Origin Marking) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Gareth Snell, supported by Adam Jogee, Dame Karen Bradley, Leigh Ingham, Dave Robertson, David Williams and Dan Aldridge, presented a Bill to require the indication of country of origin for ceramic products; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 21).

Northern Ireland Troubles (Criminal Investigations etc) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Lewis Cocking, on behalf of Lincoln Jopp, supported by David Davis, Alex Burghart, James Cartlidge, Nick Timothy, Mr Mark Francois, Jim Shannon, Ian Roome, John Cooper, Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst and Katie Lam, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals relating to the circumstances in which new criminal investigations, prosecutions, inquests or inquiries in respect of Troubles-related conduct carried out in Northern Ireland may be commenced; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 22).

Fireworks Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Patricia Ferguson, supported by Sarah Owen, Kirsteen Sullivan, Alberto Costa, Douglas McAllister, Martin Rhodes, Dave Doogan, John Grady, Dr Zubir Ahmed, Susan Murray, Maureen Burke and Tracy Gilbert, presented a Bill to make provision about fireworks; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 23).

Group-based Child Sexual Offences (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Robert Jenrick, supported by Nigel Farage, Richard Tice, Lee Anderson, Sara Pochin, Danny Kruger, Andrew Rosindell and Suella Braverman, presented a Bill to make provision about the sentencing of offenders convicted of serious sexual crimes against children committed as part of a group; to require that whole life orders are the starting point for adult offenders; to require minimum terms for young adult and child offenders; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 24).

Automated Online Software (Access and Transparency) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Damian Hinds, supported by Alex Davies-Jones, Sir John Whittingdale, Pete Wishart, Liz Jarvis, Mr Bayo Alaba, Dame Caroline Dinenage, Simon Hoare, Jeff Smith and Vicky Foxcroft, presented a Bill to make provision about the registration of operators of specified automated online software; to make provision about duties on those operators with regard to the functions of that software, including in relation to accessing online material published by persons other than the operator; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 25).

Relationships and Sex Education (Further Education Sector) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Alistair Strathern presented a Bill to make provision about relationships and sex education in the further education sector.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 26).

Cancer (Reporting and Strategy) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Clive Jones, supported by Dr Scott Arthur, Helen Morgan, Mary Kelly Foy, Helen Maguire, Lee Pitcher, Charlie Maynard, Cameron Thomas, Mr Will Forster, Adam Jogee, Christine Jardine and Vikki Slade, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on performance in relation to specified targets and measures relating to cancer and to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancer; to require the Government to publish a strategy for improving cancer outcomes; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 27).

Planning (Solar Power Generation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Victoria Atkins presented a Bill to make provision about the granting of planning permission and development consent in respect of the building or installation of provision for solar power generation on agricultural land; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 28).

Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Munira Wilson, supported by Alex Davies-Jones, Dame Karen Bradley, Max Wilkinson, Jess Phillips, Damian Hinds, Jess Brown-Fuller and Marie Goldman, presented a Bill to make certain acts involving child-like sexual abuse dolls an offence; to make provision for the seizure and forfeiture of such items; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 29).

Coastal Communities (Health) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Steff Aquarone, supported by Edward Morello, Andrew George, Rachel Gilmour, Caroline Voaden and Richard Foord, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State, in exercising functions in relation to the health service, to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities between people in coastal and inland areas; to require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a strategy for improving the health and wellbeing of coastal communities and for reducing health inequalities between people in coastal and inland areas; to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the implementation of that strategy; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 30).

Hospice Funding Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Paul Foster presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals relating to the funding by integrated care boards of medicines and pharmacy services for patients in hospices; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 31).

Work Experience (Schools) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

David Pinto-Duschinsky presented a Bill to make provision about work experience for pupils in secondary education.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 32).

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pamela Nash]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for the publication of the defence investment plan, but I do not think it is within the scope of this Bill and it is definitely above my pay grade as a Parliamentary Private Secretary to Defence Ministers.

Finally, I want to see Dalzell again supporting a vibrant workforce, providing safe, well-paid, high-quality jobs to local people and being able to develop apprentices for the next generation of steel processing in Scotland. I want to see income investment in Motherwell from the reinvigoration of this plant, allowing surrounding businesses to benefit from its success. I reject the attempts of Opposition Members to limit the Bill’s ability to support our industry when it needs it most.

In his closing speech, will the Minister reassure the workers at Dalzell that this Government will support them, possibly with the safety net of this Bill or otherwise, whenever it is necessary? Will he also confirm to the people of Motherwell that Dalzell remains at the heart of this Government’s plans for the UK steel industry?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

Just like yesterday, this second day of debate has been incredibly considered and collaborative. I very much thank everyone for contributing, just as they did yesterday.

Having listened very carefully to the debate, I think many of the proposed amendments and new clauses fall into categories to do with the good use of public money in relation to valuations and liabilities, and to the role of this Parliament in scrutiny and reporting. I say at the outset, and I think this was put quite well by my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke (Pamela Nash)—she did so in an intervention I had slightly forgotten about—that the Government are trying to strike a balance. We must strike a balance between the essential nature of government, with our public accountability and also the obvious bureaucracy, and the commercial demands of business. I think we have found the balance in the right place, and as I address some of the amendments, I hope to convince hon. Members that we have given due consideration to that.

Many Members, quite understandably, have highlighted specific cases in the steel industry that they believe the Government should consider. We have heard very powerfully about the plate mill at Dalzell and we have also heard about British Steel. However, this Bill is not targeted at any particular steel company; it provides powers to the Secretary of State to act in the national interest.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

This is not my specialist subject, so I ask the Minister to bear with me. Thames Covers in Shepperton in my Spelthorne constituency, which is a boat fitter, has been told that the cost of stainless steel tubing will go up by 50% from 1 July because of a new tariff kicking in. As I understand it, the tariff is to encourage people to buy British Steel, but the trouble is that British Steel does not make stainless steel tubing, so it will add a huge cost. The Minister says the Bill is not about individual businesses, but about overall governance. However, the Government may be causing unintended consequences, and perhaps the impact assessments we are calling for in new clause 7 would be a good idea.

[Chris McDonald]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for taking the trouble to make that intervention. A number of Members have talked about downstream steel, so although it is not precisely within the scope of this Bill—and, in fact, I do not think those impact assessments would address that point—perhaps I could address their comments.

Members have mentioned several different companies. This morning, I had a very constructive discussion with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), about specific instances, but she also pressed me on the concerns of many Members across the whole House. There are concerns about the introduction of the new trade measures from 1 July. I have, with the co-operation of Members from across the House, been able to gather specific examples from a number of different companies around the country that are concerned.

I am engaging with my officials and it is a matter of detail for each company. Some are finding that they will still be able to access the steels, because the measures are targeted at steels that are either currently produced or could be produced in the UK. Some have a concern because the steels that could be produced are produced primarily as speciality steels, or perhaps at Dalzell plate mill, as we have heard—certainly, the measures should incentivise some production there. Owing to the nature of the trade measures—they are grouped under eight broad categories, rather than extremely specific grade codes—some grades that are not made in the UK, such as seamless tubes, could be drawn into that. That is where quotas are important, so it is really an assessment of whether the quotas are right. Again, we have been able to provide reassurance on those instances.

However, I would never claim that the Government are infallible—I am certainly not—so that is why it has been very important to collect information and take action. In fact, I can inform the hon. Gentleman that tomorrow I am co-chairing a meeting with the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), in whose area this matter strictly falls, to talk specifically to downstream businesses. I would like to acknowledge not only Members, but the Confederation of British Metalforming and the British Constructional Steelwork Association, which have worked with me so closely on this matter.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris McDonald]

Yes, I will take two interventions.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. I just want to make it clear that I did allow some latitude, but this is a debate on the nationalisation of the steel industry, not tariffs.

[Chris McDonald]

Okay. I am happy to give way and we will see what the Members have to say.

[Paul Waugh]

Simply to follow up, Ms Nokes, on the point the Minister was making about exemptions for individual companies, Hanson Springs in Rochdale relies heavily on imports of steel of a particular length. Will the Minister reassure us that, as with the shadow Minister, he will be engaging with many businesses to ensure that they are not hit by tariffs and that the Bill will not harm them?

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I am going to allow the Minister to respond, but I am not going to allow this to turn into a debate on tariffs and how they may or may not impact individual companies around the entire country, which I fear is where we are headed.

[Chris McDonald]

Thank you, Ms Nokes. Perhaps it would be helpful for me to take the second intervention and respond just once.

[Helena Dollimore]

I recently met a local steel business to discuss this issue and how it can source more British steel in line with the principles of the Bill. It raised with me a keen desire to source as much as possible in Britain, but it is not sure if it can actually source all the products it needs in Britain. It mentioned hot rolled coil as one example. The business is called Fowle & Co. and it would be great if the Minister could commit for his officials to meet my local business and hear its experience.

[Chris McDonald]

I am aware of the issue with the springs company raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). I think it is particularly an issue around 13 metre bars. My office is arranging a meeting with the company concerned. I am also aware of the issue on hot rolled coil and am addressing that, too.

[Jamie Stone]

I assure the Chamber that I shall not mention power of any particular sort. Will the Minister, if he has not done so, think about having a word with the Scottish Government and how they might help him in his endeavours?

[Chris McDonald]

I am always very happy to receive help from everywhere, but the Scottish Government could help themselves by taking a more proactive approach to nuclear, as the hon. Gentleman identified earlier. The Scottish economy could benefit from that.

Let me make some progress. I want to turn to the parts of the Bill that Members have raised in the debate, and thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the shadow Minister for the amendments they have tabled. Amendment 4 was one of the amendments intended to extend reporting requirements around financial assistance and compensation under section 52. In the case of compensation, that is of course a one-off payment and so the question of regular reporting does not arise.

On the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, to which the hon. Lady spoke earlier, amendment 6 is about taking into account ETS, CBAM and so on in valuations.

A number of comments were made about valuations and the role of the independent valuer, which we will also touch on when we consider the new clauses on capping compensation. It is particularly important that we draw a distinction between the role of Government and that of the independent valuer here, which goes back to some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. It is a serious and rare intervention that the Government are making, and one that should happen only when there is a market failure or a company is in distress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Myer]

The Minister is right in what he says about trade. On amendment 6, however, industry is concerned that phasing out free allowances before the new CBAM is fully tested risks exposing UK industry to carbon leakage. Does he agree that the new CBAM must be robustly designed and implemented to genuinely level the playing field for industry?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metals-related industries. The Treasury is responsible for the carbon border adjustment mechanism and is consulting extremely carefully with the industry on that. I am sure that the Treasury will have heard his remarks and will take them into account.

Amendments 7 to 9 relate primarily to some of the environmental liabilities. The issue also arose in yesterday’s debate, where there were concerns about liabilities—the phrase “unlimited liabilities” might have been used. However, the liabilities are not unlimited. We have a reasonably good sense of what the liabilities are. We would expect the valuer to take those liabilities into account—that is quite right—but we have extensive experience with the remediation of similar sites elsewhere in the country.

The Committee has heard about the Ravenscraig site, but the Teesside site is a more recent example. The remediation of the Teesside site—the amount of public money spent on that—is well documented. The site in Scunthorpe is of a similar age, has had similar industrial activity, and is of a similar size. Ultimately, however, the Government are seeking to avoid the crystallisation of environmental liabilities by ensuring the continued operation of steel on the site. It is the responsibility of the valuer to take that into account when determining the valuation of the company. For that reason, the Government do not consider it necessary to support amendments 7 to 9.

Amendments 10 and 11 propose increasing the frequency of reporting on financial assistance to every three months. Again, it is the Government’s view that the current framework is proportionate in terms of the balance between transparency and delivery. We are incredibly concerned to ensure that we do not impose unnecessary administrative burdens. Inevitably, the management of a business acquired through the Bill and the civil servants in my Department would have to deal with the reasons for the business’s acquisition. Although we of course feel that reporting, transparency and accountability to this House are important, we are trying to strike a balance.

I know that amendment 20 is particularly important to the Opposition, so I will spend a bit of time on it. We are all incredibly concerned about value for money, but we have existing arrangements across Government to deal with that. It is already the case that Departments must secure value for money under the Treasury’s managing public money framework. It is also our view that the drafting of the amendment does not quite meet the requirement as described: that the National Audit Office would check the assistance prior to being approved. We think that putting this requirement in statute would unnecessarily reduce the Government’s ability to act quickly where support is needed. We have heard from many contributions today that on the presumption that the legislation will be required, the Government must be able to move quickly.

We have seen the need for acting quickly before. Harking back to a previous example of a failed steel business, I recall that we had only a matter of days within which to save the Teesside business due to a shortage of coal. Of course, we all remember that it was necessary to come back to Parliament at incredibly short notice to pass the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025, again because there was a shortage of coal, with the potential for those coal shipments to be diverted. It is therefore incredibly important that the Secretary of State is able to act quickly when required.

A couple of amendments have been proposed by Plaid Cymru Members—although they are not present, I think it is still responsible to address them. One amendment is about restricting the National Wealth Fund, with which I completely disagree. The National Wealth Fund is one of Government’s primary instruments for assessing potential investment opportunities and investing in industry. In fact, there is provision through the Government’s £2.5 billion steel fund for the National Wealth Fund to offer support to steel companies, as set out in the steel strategy. We intend to use whatever funding instruments are available to Government, not to restrict them.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Although Plaid Cymru Members are not present, another Welsh Member is. With the Minister mentioning the available funding, I will take the opportunity to raise a topical matter with him, which is the catastrophic fire that took place on the pickle line last week in Port Talbot. I want to put on the record our thanks to the emergency services and the steelworkers who worked so hard to contain it, as I know from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock). The work is now being transferred to Llanwern, but it is a worrying time for those at Port Talbot. Does the Minister agree that, alongside the Bill, we must protect the jobs in the south Wales steel industry and ensure that they are fully equipped to support the expansion of sovereign steel that we all want to see as we go forward?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the incident last Wednesday at the Port Talbot site. Pickle lines are notoriously susceptible to these sorts of incidents because of the high-temperature hydrochloric acid used to treat the steels. I would imagine that once such a blaze has taken hold, the effects can be absolutely devastating. I want to echo her commendation of the emergency services and the workforce, who are, in this situation, the first responders, protecting life and valuable industrial plants. I was incredibly relieved to hear shortly after the incident that every single member of staff was accounted for. It is a credit to Tata Steel and its management processes.

I am, however, concerned about our loss of productive capacity there as a result of this incident. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, we are fortunate in having another pickle line available in Llanwern, and I understand that as of last Friday Tata Steel is looking at restarting that plant and moving the work there—perhaps it has already restarted—but the hot mill was down for a time in Port Talbot. This really emphasises where we have points of vulnerability in our industrial capacity, not only in steel but more broadly. We are determined to address those points through this Bill, our steel strategy and our wider industrial strategy. I thank her for raising that matter.

[Luke Myer]

I thank the Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous. He has made a couple of references to the Teesside site, both to the crash closure in 2015 and to the remediation of the land. With that land having now been remediated, immense steel structures are being built there as part of the Government’s carbon capture programme. It was great to be on site recently and to see the progress of that site. The project is using 50% UK steel; of course, Liberty Steel in Hartlepool has benefited from that. Does the Minister agree that procurement measures like contracts for difference need to be adjusted to ensure that we are using domestic steel in as much of our major infrastructure projects as possible?

[Chris McDonald]

I agree that procurement has an important role to play here. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have welcomed recent changes in guidance by the Cabinet Office to ensure that British steel producers are well placed to win these orders, as well as in the areas of renewable energy, where the Government are awarding significant contracts, and nuclear power, where we are again endeavouring to ensure that British companies are well placed to win those contracts.

I turn to amendment 22 and new clauses 4 and 12, which would impose statutory caps on compensation and financial assistance. I have already addressed compensation, and financial assistance is somewhat similar in that applying a cap on the basis of the number of employees, or indeed a fixed cap of any kind, would ultimately restrain the Government’s ability to respond effectively to circumstances as they evolve.

I believe that could fundamentally undermine the purpose of the Bill, which is for the Government, with the will of Parliament, to be ready to respond to circumstances such that we are not required to fly back from wherever we are in the world at incredibly short notice, and prolong uncertainty among the workforce and suppliers. We do not want to create any legal uncertainty, uncertainty in the supply chain or commercial uncertainty. That is why it is important to have this level of flexibility.

The Bill has proportionate and robust transparency and accountability mechanisms for the provision of financial assistance. For instance, clause 59 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament at 12-monthly intervals, and funding will be subject to the established framework for managing public money, including through Treasury approval processes.

New clause 6 would place on the Secretary of State a requirement to put forward a proposal to Parliament about providing financial assistance if a Select Committee were to make recommendations on that. Again, that is not realistic. Given that financial support would be required immediately following a transfer, there would not be time for that level of parliamentary scrutiny. Important though scrutiny is—I certainly welcome the investigation into steel currently being carried out by the Public Accounts Committee—we have to be realistic about the point at which it is possible to apply scrutiny.

New clause 7 would require impact assessments to be published before exercising the Bill’s provisions. Again, the issue is essentially about pace among other things. We believe that impact assessments are crucial to show the impact of Government intervention, and the Government are committed to operating in line with our better regulation framework requirements. We do not want to introduce any further legal uncertainty, so we reject the new clause.

A number of colleagues mentioned new clause 9, so it is important to address some of the issues raised around that. Fundamentally, the new clause would not be at all helpful; I will give an example as to why. There is an assumption in the new clause that if the Government were to nationalise a business under the Bill, the best approach would be to treat it like a hot potato and immediately throw it away. We have seen the impact of that.

We heard yesterday about the nationalisation—briefly—of British Steel by the previous Conservative Government: they spent £750,000, made no investment in the business and immediately sold it on to a company called Greybull Capital, whose track record was failure at Monarch airlines, failure at Comet electrical stores and failure at Rileys snooker halls. If you cannot run a snooker hall, you definitely cannot run a steel company.

This is where the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I have some points of agreement: there is more than one way to bring investment into a business other than selling it to an overseas investor. We could have debt and equity finance, and the Conservative party used to be keen on mass public ownership via a listing on the London Stock Exchange. There are many different ways in which we can bring private sector investment into a business and resolve issues around ownership.

Of course, it is intolerable to work in a business that is constantly up for sale—I have been in that position myself—as businesses do not perform in that position. A decision to sell a business is a decision made at a point in time, not an ongoing process. The Government therefore reject that new clause.

Given that I have detained the Committee considerably over the last couple of days, I have no wish to do so any further. I hope that, having responded as fully as I can to the amendments and new clauses, the Members who tabled them might feel sufficiently reassured not to press them and therefore save the House their consideration. I fully and sincerely thank everyone for their incredible participation in the debate, for the marvellous speeches that we have heard today, and for their strong interest in the steel industry that I have worked in and which I continue to champion in this House.

[Sarah Olney]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 7.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 52 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Financial assistance

Amendment proposed: 20, page 39, line 7, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State may only provide financial assistance under this section if they are satisfied that financial assistance will secure value for money.”—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.