Net Zero Transition: Consumer-led Flexibility

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Claire Young]

I absolutely agree, and I am coming to those points.

The Government have set out a clean flexibility road map, and E.ON has found that 84% of people want more control over energy, so what is the catch? It might be said that this is all well and good for affluent consumers, who can afford the smart technology—the electric cars, battery storage and heat pumps, and the washing machines and dishwashers with timers so that they do not have to get up in the middle of the night to switch them on. It is all right for those who are digitally literate and for those who have heard of smart tariffs—let alone got their head around how they work. What about those who do not fit into those privileged categories? How does consumer-led flexibility fit with a just transition?

A report by the MCS Foundation in August found that 78% of people are unaware of schemes that reward households for reducing energy use at certain times and 41% are unlikely to switch to tariffs offering cheaper electricity outside peak times. If only a privileged few can access flexibility, will it deliver the potential benefits or simply place more of a burden on those already struggling to pay? It has the potential to lower all bills—as previously mentioned—by driving costs out of the system. That benefits even those who cannot participate. But we need to do more. To achieve the scale of change necessary, we need more action from the Government.

About three in 10 homes still do not even have smart meters, and the Government concede that, in those that do, one in 10 is faulty, while others put the figure even higher. That does not bode well for the roll-out of more advanced smart technology. What about the digitally excluded? The Government should oblige energy suppliers to engage with digitally excluded groups and those on low incomes on the benefits of flexibility. Does it not make comparing tariffs more complicated? Potentially it does, so why not support a “try it and see” approach by requiring energy suppliers to offer risk-free trial periods for time-of-use tariffs?

We have all seen, in other periods of rapid technological change, that some projects fail, so Ofgem needs to strengthen consumer protection, with clear redress powers if that happens. The Government’s own clean power action plan says that to reach clean power 2030, we need 12 GW of consumer-led flexibility—more than nuclear, hydrogen and carbon capture combined. But flexibility gets none of the coverage that those technologies do. It is all very well having a road map. What are Ministers actually doing to change the fact that nearly four in five people do not even know that they can be rewarded for changing when they use electricity?

The markets have been designed for the traditional fossil fuel generators, not for individuals and businesses that generate their own power or can offer storage. We need a presumption of openness in energy market design and rules to support them. If a rule from a market maker prevents a family with a battery, or a business with thermal storage, from participating in the market, it should be forced to justify why. The way that the network costs and final consumption levies work means that consumers cannot currently be paid to use excess renewable power when electricity prices go negative. That needs urgent reform. Imagine how much easier it would be to make the case for the clean energy transition if people could be paid for using clean, free power.

If flexibility is to be delivered, there needs to be clear accountability, without room for buck passing between the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator. The new flexibility commissioner needs to be given teeth, the ability to demand transparency and accountability from everybody involved, and the authority to call out failure. Have Ministers looked closely at the industry progress board that has been set up, and can the commissioner work with it?

It is time to give people the chance to take control and be active participants in our energy system, rather than being at its mercy. The road map, the commissioner and the technology are all in place, and we know that the public want more control over their energy and their bills. Will the Government take the extra steps needed to make this happen, or will they allow the dinosaurs of the old system to stand in the way? Let us move beyond the map to make this a reality and slash bills for everyone.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called during the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mr Vickers. I am frequently told that consumer-led flexibility does not get enough time, but I now have almost an hour to talk about the Government’s plans on it. I intend to use every moment I have.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

You don’t have to!

[Michael Shanks]

No, I don’t intend to—do not worry, colleagues.

This is an important debate, however, and I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) for securing it. She made a point that those in the industry make regularly to me: that this is too often a footnote in the discussion about achieving our future energy security. It should not be. It should be much further up the agenda. It is not for want of trying; I often talk about it, but it is regularly the bit that gets cut out of interviews before they are broadcast. The Government are certainly talking about these issues.

The hon. Lady outlined perfectly the problem of how we get cheaper, more secure power to homes and businesses, and the three fixes: building more grid, strategically planning where energy is built in the first place, and utilising flexibility. The truth is that we need to do all three at a pace never before seen in this country. I will come back to those points, but I welcome her recognition of them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) made a fantastic speech, as always. She is a fantastic champion for the north-east and a long-standing campaigner on the issue of how we can reduce fuel poverty. She made the point that we risk losing the opportunity of getting cheaper power to people’s homes and bringing down their bills, and she mentioned the fantastic innovations out there already. I have had the pleasure of seeing a number of them. When I visited the Mining Remediation Authority recently, I had the genuine pleasure of hearing about the mine water heating scheme. That is a fantastic example of how we can utilise something that we used decades ago to power the country. There is also a social justice argument, as those communities who still have deep scars from that period can benefit from cheaper bills in the long run.

I also want to recognise the point the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate made about the equality aspect and how we will bring everyone with us on this transition. I will return to that point, but first I want to return to first principles and say why the Government are committed to delivering clean power by 2030. At the heart of that mission is an energy system that delivers flexibility for consumers: not forcing consumers to make choices, but giving them the opportunity to make choices that bring their bills down, and to use technology for the betterment of their lives in a way they choose.

The clean power action plan outlined 10 GW to 12 GW of consumer-led flexibility. I think that in the months ahead we will be talking much more about that part of the action plan. The Government have had to move very quickly in the first 16 months to deliver on the auctions in offshore and onshore wind, to lift the ban on onshore wind and to deliver much more solar than we have ever seen, but flexibility has been hugely important in the background, and we will say much more in public about it in the coming months.

Let me respond briefly to the core argument that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), made about the clean power mission:

“The UK is a world leader in renewable energy…and we must go further. Energy security means national security. We must replace imported fossil fuels with cheaper, cleaner, domestic sources of energy. That is how we will ensure that the UK never again suffers the rising prices caused by Putin’s weaponisation of energy following his invasion of Ukraine.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 21WS.]

Those are not my words, but the words of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), in November 2023. I am not quite sure what has happened to the Conservative party in two years, but the Conservatives seem to have completely changed not just their position, but their understanding of the facts and science behind what they were saying then. The right hon. Member, who was Secretary of State at the time, made my argument just as well as I could ever seek to. I will leave it at that.

A just transition has the power to unlock enormous benefits for people right across the country. It is why we have pledged to deliver clean power, because we know it is cheaper and it removes the volatility of which all our constituents are still facing the cost. It will shield consumers from the volatility in global gas prices, over which we have absolutely no control, but it will also create new jobs in industries right across the country. It is the economic opportunity of the 21st century.

The role of storage will be important. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) talked about a school trip to Dinorwig; in Scotland, I think every single school child went to Cruachan, the hollow mountain, which is another pumped hydro power station. Although pumped hydro may be a technology from the last century, it is critical in this century as well. Indeed, the Government have launched the first new long-duration energy storage in 40 years. It is a critical way of dispatching clean power and storing it for when we absolutely need it, so it still plays an important role.

Consumer-led flexibility will play an important role in getting renewable energy to people’s homes. It will help us to balance the grid and ensure that we have supply when we need it. It enables us to take advantage of low-carbon energy and reduce periods of peak demand and the associated infrastructure needs. It also involves financial rewards for those who choose to shift their electricity use to times when supply is more abundant, cheaper and cleaner. Smart meters are a key part of that. As we all know from our constituencies, we would all have liked to see a more efficient roll-out of the smart meter programme over the years, but 70% of meters across Great Britain are now smart or advanced meters, with more than 40 million homes and businesses having them installed.

We will continue to monitor the roll-out in Government very closely. Indeed, I chair a working group that is looking at how we can deliver market-wide half-hourly settlements much faster. That is really important so that consumers and businesses benefit directly from having a smart meter and new technology.

[Michael Shanks]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point. I always appreciate the kindness of his contributions, although he needs to lower his expectations of mine. He rightly mentioned the statistic that 68% of households in Northern Ireland have oil heating, which he raised with me in a previous debate. That figure surprised me, and it is a reminder of the complexity of the different circumstances across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I work closely on this issue with Northern Ireland Executive colleagues in the Department for the Economy, and we share much of our good practice to make sure that everybody comes with us on this journey. I will shortly say more on the hon. Gentleman’s point about gas.

We are already seeing consumers benefiting from flexibility. Last year, the demand flexibility service saw over 2 million households and businesses save money by flexing their demand. We are committed to ensuring that all consumers have the option to participate, not just those who can afford certain technologies. The Government have committed £1.5 billion through the warm homes plan, which will help to upgrade low-income households. The Government will also work to ensure that flexibility is simplified and accessible for all consumers who want to take part, not just the tech savvy and those who are already able to. We have to remember that flexibility brings down the price for everyone, even those who are not participating, because of the benefits it brings to the overall system.

As we shift away from gas, consumer-led flexibility will become even more vital for managing an electrified system. Crucially, it will bring down bills for all consumers, not just those who actively participate. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot, gave a figure on the direct benefit from consumer-led flex, and a more flexible system is estimated to save up to £10 billion a year overall because of that efficiency. It is hugely important.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about the transition. Obviously, connecting to the gas network is difficult in Northern Ireland, and this is a huge opportunity for many households to jump a step—from oil heating to heat pumps and other technologies. There is a real opportunity for those households to benefit, perhaps even more than some other households, if we get the transition to consumer-led flex correct. I look forward to more conversations with the hon. Gentleman on that issue.

The other point I want to make is about the role of technology. Consumer-led flexibility is becoming increasingly automated, which means that consumers can benefit from these opportunities with little or no intrusion in their daily lives. Indeed, I have seen examples where consumers have set up technology and let it run for months at a time. For example, an EV owner can plug their car into a smart charger, which will optimise charging so that it happens at the most cost-effective times of the day, while still meeting the battery charge they need the next morning, saving a significant amount of money.

I recently had a great opportunity to visit Flexitricity in Edinburgh, which is a fantastic business—not least because it has a fantastic view of Edinburgh castle, although that was not my reason for visiting. My visit brought home two things: first, the cutting-edge technology and innovation that we already have in this space; and secondly, how this is an opportunity to create high-paid, skilled jobs across the country. I met a number of apprentices and people who had changed career to be part of that innovation—the business is a fantastic example. I thank the Association for Decentralised Energy, some of whom I see in the Public Gallery today, for joining me on that visit and for the work they do.

We recently published the flexibility road map, which sets out specific, measurable actions for DESNZ, Ofgem and NESO to deliver the flexibility we need. The road map sets out a strategy and clear actions to make sure we can deliver on this. It acknowledges that the Government, in partnership with Ofgem and NESO, will need to take a leading role in making sure this is a priority for those organisations. The publication puts consumers at the heart of what we want to achieve.

The road map is a first step. To deliver it, we know we have to sustain that momentum. As many hon. Members have said, agreeing that this is the right thing to do is not enough; we have to get on with delivery. This debate is perfectly timed, because this afternoon I will attend the first clean flexibility road map quarterly forum to make sure we are driving progress on this. That was already in the diary, but this debate is perfect timing.

I thank the ADE for all its engagement and expertise on this matter, and I thank all the organisations working in this space for raising innovative and creative ideas for how we can make this happen faster. This is an area where the Government do not always know best, and the innovation from the private sector and communities across the country will help us to deliver this transition. It is crucial that the Government continue to hear that, and that we continue to be challenged to move further and faster.

We have seen good progress on leadership, which goes hand in hand with our work on the road map and on the appointment of a flexibility commissioner. We will be able to announce who we are appointing very soon, and they can then get on with driving this work forward as part of the clean power mission. Leadership is important more generally in this space. As politics moves away from a fact-based, rational discussion of the challenges this country faces, it is ever more important that we have these debates on the detail of how we deliver such important policies.

We must also recognise that we are making progress. There is sometimes a tendency to think that nothing is happening, but a huge amount is happening: the migration of consumers to half-hourly settlement has begun and is making great progress; NESO is about to consult on the next iteration of the demand flexibility service; Ofgem is assessing how to recover costs through bills in a way that is fair and efficient; and we have consulted on our smart secure electricity systems programme, including how we can make it easier for electricity consumers to participate. All that work going on in the background will start to have a real impact on people’s lives in the coming months.

I thank everyone for their contributions to this debate. The Government are committed to delivering a clean power system, because that is the only way to bring down people’s bills in the long run, to remove the volatility of fossil fuels, for which we are paying the fossil fuel penalty, and to deliver energy security in an increasingly uncertain world. Flexibility is at the heart of this, and for us to have a genuinely just transition—one that brings people with us—we have to do what is challenging. This is a new way of working. It is different, and it will require people to think differently about their energy use and about how we deliver the change as a country, but opportunity is right at the heart of this—we should never forget that opportunity is the prize if we achieve this.

We will continue to work across Government and across the energy sector so that people can take advantage of the benefits of consumer-led flexibility and so that, ultimately, we end up with a 21st-century energy system that recognises that all our lives have changed in the last few years in how we consume electricity. Every single projection suggests consumption will increase over the coming years, so it is hugely important that we take these steps now so that the people of this country benefit from the energy transition that is under way.

I thank everyone again, and I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate for securing this important debate.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I thank the Minister for not taking the full 50 minutes available, which leaves more than the usual two minutes for Claire Young to wind up.

North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that this is a huge opportunity, which the previous Government talked about a lot but did not actually move forward on delivering. In the spending review, there were significant amounts of investment to move forward with the carbon capture clusters, and we have followed that up with specific investments over the past few months. I have been privileged to visit some of the sites and see the potential for maintaining existing jobs in industry while building the jobs of the future in carbon capture. We are hugely positive about the future vision for carbon capture across the country, as a way to tackle our emissions, help us get to net zero, and create good industrial jobs.

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

I thank the Minister for the engagement we have had over the future of Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency. Can he give any indication of what support the Government might give, and when a final decision might be taken? Will he at least acknowledge that new licences in the North sea would offer job opportunities for those people whose jobs are at risk?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the engagement we have had on this issue. Obviously, the failure of the company that was previously running the Prax Lindsey oil refinery has had a really significant impact. We have been working to make sure that the process that the official receiver is going through is concluded as soon as possible. It is for the receiver to decide who the potential buyers are; it is looking at a shortlist of credible candidates, but given the nature of the insolvency, it is not for the Government to decide what is built next on that site.

Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s second point, I genuinely do not think that the licensing question will decide the future of jobs for that site. We want to build up an industry for the future on that site, with long-term, sustainable jobs, and all the evidence we have seen about managing the future of the North sea basin suggests that that while oil and gas will be important for many years to come, that is not the long-term future for the North sea.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I have to apologise to the hon. Lady, because I have not yet seen the Liberal Democrats’ policy proposals, but I look forward to that treat over the summer. I am grateful to her for backing our plans on energy costs. We are supporting a pilot in the west midlands to help SMEs to reduce their energy costs. It offers full energy audits and funding to implement measures that can bring down energy costs. The scheme seems to be working well, and we have recently extended it.

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

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)]

This has been a year of real achievement for the Department for Business and Trade. From holding our record-breaking international investment summit, which saw £63 billion committed to the UK, to intervening decisively to save British Steel’s Scunthorpe site and all the shipyards at Harland and Wolff, we have safeguarded thousands of jobs. We have reformed the Competition and Markets Authority, changed the zero emission vehicle mandate, altered the remit of the Low Pay Commission and introduced the Employment Rights Bill.

We have quadrupled compensation payments to victims of the Horizon scandal. We have agreed trade deals with India, the EU and the US and published a comprehensive trade strategy to help us to secure greater access to global markets for British business. We have brought forward our industrial strategy, and last week a survey by Deloitte found that Britain has become the most attractive place to invest in the world. We are delivering this Government’s plan for change, putting money into people’s pockets, driving growth and kickstarting a decade of national renewal.

[Martin Vickers]

The Secretary of State has tried to paint a glowing picture of what is happening, but I can tell him that in northern Lincolnshire there are growing concerns. There have been a number of business failures in the last few weeks in the Grimsby and Immingham areas, and he will be aware of the threat to hundreds of jobs at the Prax oil refinery. All that makes it even more important that the Scunthorpe steelworks has a long-term future. Can he update the House on the state of things at Scunthorpe?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am always keen to update the hon. Member and colleagues on the situation with British Steel. We have cancelled the redundancy consultation and removed the immediate risk to 2,700 jobs. We have taken on new apprentices and invested significantly in improving health and safety on the site. We have provided significant working capital—that does not take into account yet the future revenue that will come. I am sure he will have been pleased to see that Network Rail has awarded British Steel a contract worth £500 million. We will continue to ensure that there is a long-term future for British Steel, and we will keep the House and himself updated to that effect.

UK Modern Industrial Strategy

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s comments in welcoming the strategy. There is a great deal that I could go through. I would get in trouble with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I mentioned the benefits for every sector in the document, but I think we would all recognise the pressure on the ceramics sector through energy prices—much of the industry is gas-intensive, and there are not policy tools for dealing with that in the same way. Only a small number of ceramics businesses currently benefit from the supercharger—I think only eight in total—which is why the test for the British industrial competitiveness programme is a different one. There will be a proper process to assess thresholds and eligibility, but it is designed in such a way that foundation sectors—ceramics is very much included in the material side of that—would get the benefit of the programme.

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

Belated though it is, the announcement about energy costs is obviously vital to the steel sector. The Secretary of State is well aware of the situation in Scunthorpe. Will he give an assurance that, for the foreseeable future, production of virgin steel will continue in Scunthorpe? Will he work with North Lincolnshire council, which has plans for redeveloping the redundant parts of the site, particularly in respect of an AI growth zone?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank the hon. Member very much for his work. I think the whole House knows of my personal interest in steel and the measures we have taken, including the recall of Parliament and the passing of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 that was required to save his constituents’ jobs. He is right that the investment required in some of the most electricity-intensive opportunities of the future—electric arc furnaces, for instance, were we to go down that route at Scunthorpe —requires the kind of programme that the enhanced supercharger level will get to because of the measures outlined in the strategy.

There is not yet a plan for transition at Scunthorpe. As the hon. Member knows, we have taken control, but we need to resolve the issue of ownership. We continue to run the plant in a way that minimises losses to the taxpayer. That has meant putting more money in up front to run it at full capacity, which I think he will very much support. We will continue to work with anyone in the local area, including him and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), to ensure that there is a bright future for the steel sector. I believe that will be possible based on the policy environment we are putting in place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for updating the House on that matter. He will know that one of the brilliant things about the UK-India deal is that it is not just for the higher-value, iconic products we are all familiar with; for bulk, there is no minimum price in the deal. The deal is incredibly strong for every bit of the whisky—and gin—industry in the United Kingdom.

I am alert to the news my hon. Friend has just shared, and colleagues will update the House.

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

Greenergy, a company based in Immingham, has been forced to shut down and review some of its operations in the UK. In part, that is due to an influx of heavily subsidised hydro-treated vegetable oil from the US. Will the Secretary of State bear this in mind when he has trade negotiations with the US with a view to easing the situation?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I shall of course take that up with the hon. Member. I have spent a fair bit of time in his constituency, as he knows, on one matter or another. On fair trade and level playing fields, colleagues can direct their industries to the Trade Remedies Authority if they have specific concerns, but, of course, we monitor those matters at a departmental level as well.

British Steel

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of Tata investing in those assets and the future of the Port Talbot site, which is incredibly important. Of course, we meet regularly to talk about that. We have the transition board, which the Secretary of State for Wales convenes, along with the Welsh Government. We are working at pace to understand what those future investments could be. She is right to demand that the steel plan is for everywhere rather than just for one part or other of the UK. We want to and will ensure that the nations and regions all benefit from the funding and mechanisms that we put in place to improve procurement, scrap and all those things. Of course, it is not just Tata in Wales; Celsa too is incredibly important and a very impressive company. She can be reassured on that front. I am always happy to have more conversations with colleagues from Wales about how that can work going forward.

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

It is clearly extremely welcome that the redundancy notices have been withdrawn—the steel community will breathe a sigh of relief. The Minister quite rightly speaks about what happens next. As well as a national streel strategy, the north Lincolnshire area needs a strategy of its own to maintain the local economy. Will she commit to an early meeting with MPs from the affected area, as well as with Councillor Rob Waltham, who leads North Lincolnshire council and has produced a document highlighting the way forward? That would be extremely helpful.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his continued support for his community. Yes, I am very happy to meet the leader of North Lincolnshire council, as I have done previously; he is an incredibly important part of the jigsaw of what happens in the area. I am always happy to meet MPs—I meet my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) and the hon. Gentleman regularly—and will continue to do so to ensure that we work in the interests of the whole area.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Martin Vickers Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), my Member of Parliament; on this matter we are in complete harmony. Before I talk about the local situation, which is what I want to focus on, may I thank the Secretary of State for giving me a call yesterday evening and outlining the proposals he would be bringing forward this morning? I did say to him that I would not be entirely uncritical, so I am sure he will not mind a few jabs here and there.

The local situation is extremely critical, as has been pointed out. The impact, not only on the workforce but on the wider economy of northern Lincolnshire, would be extensive. I have been a resident in the Grimsby-Cleethorpes area all my life, and I have seen the impact when a town loses its core industry. In the case of Grimsby, of course, that was the deep-sea fishing industry. When that decline happens—it has happened to so many towns up and down the country as a result of the decline in mining, shipbuilding and other heavy industries—it takes a generation or perhaps more for the town to fully recover.

That is the last thing I want to see happen in my neighbouring constituency of Scunthorpe, or to the hundreds of my constituents who work there. Those Members who were here for the Easter Adjournment debate—there were a handful—might have heard me say this only four days ago, but the site extends way beyond the bounds of Scunthorpe, into my Brigg and Immingham constituency. The site is the equivalent of 1,133 Wembley football pitches, which gives an idea of its size and of the amount of work that would be needed were the steelworks to close. There would be demands for vast Government investment over decades, in order to remediate the site and to provide new employment.

I said that I would not be entirely uncritical of the Secretary of State, so I refer him to my first urgent question on this matter, on 5 September last year. I said on that occasion:

“There have been widespread media reports suggesting that coke will stop being imported from October, which would mean production would stop in Scunthorpe by Christmas. There are rumours concerning the fact that employees will be given notice very soon. That is obviously creating great anxiety among those directly employed by British Steel and those in the supply chain, which in northern Lincolnshire extends to many thousands of people and many businesses.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 424.]

Thankfully, we have had a six-month reprieve from those threats in October, but I have to say, the Government have been a little dilatory on this. I appreciate that negotiations have been taking place and Ministers cannot give away their negotiating position, but I made this point as long ago as September, as well as when you granted me an urgent question on 27 March, Mr Speaker—only a couple of weeks ago—and surely the Government were beginning to realise at that point that the negotiations with Jingye were going nowhere.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that point on the record. It is precisely because of those concerns that we were able to have ready a legal route to intervene to directly offer support to purchase raw materials. What we could not have anticipated or expected was for a company to act in an irrational economic manner when such a clear, distinctive and generous offer was made.

[Martin Vickers]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I would say merely that he has been party to the negotiations, and he must surely have realised that the company was not negotiating in good faith and expected his officials to prepare legislation, if required, to deal with the situation that we are now in. As others have said, this is crucial not just for thousands of my constituents who work at the site, but for the defence of the nation. I assume and hope that Defence Ministers have been lobbying the Secretary of State to make their concerns clear.

Locally, there is continuing concern. Like the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I will support the proposals. I floated the nationalisation issue on 27 March, and I see this as a stepping-stone to that situation. To those who will perhaps demand nationalisation today, I would say that this is a very complex issue, and what matters more than anything else is the future of the workforce and the ability to produce virgin steel. Nationalisation legislation would not, I sincerely hope, be passed in three hours; it would involve a great deal of work.

Having got themselves into this situation, the Government are now taking the right action. There has been disappointment locally—to put it mildly—that the Prime Minister did not, following my question to him only 10 days ago, take up the option to meet a cross-party delegation of MPs to discuss the situation, but now that we are where we are, I fully support the Government, and I hope that they accept the sunset clause amendment, which would be prudent. I can assure them of my full support today, which they will continue to have when they act in the best interests of my constituents.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question:) To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade what actions the Government are taking to prevent the closure of Scunthorpe’s steelworks.

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

I appeared before this House on 27 March, just moments after British Steel’s devastating announcement of early asset closures at Scunthorpe and its commercial decision to consult on large-scale redundancies. The course of action chosen by British Steel’s owner is deeply disappointing, and our thoughts remain with British Steel workers and their families at this very concerning time. Government’s contingency plans have kicked in, and teams from the Departments for Work and Pensions and for Education are there to provide support and advice to affected workers. We will ensure that support is in place for as long as possible.

Looking ahead, I can assure this House that early blast furnace closures at Scunthorpe are far from a done deal. We have been clear that the best way forward is for British Steel to continue as a commercially run business with private investment and Government acting in support, which is why we made the company a generous offer of public funding on 24 March. As Members are aware, British Steel’s owner did not accept our offer or the necessary conditions attached, which were designed to protect workers, safeguard taxpayers’ money and deliver a sustainable company at the core of the future of British steelmaking.

However, that is not the end of the matter. The Business and Trade Secretary and I met Jingye, the owner of British Steel, on Friday, and there are plans to meet again this week. The Government remain resolute in our desire to secure a long-term future for the Scunthorpe steelworks, retaining steel production and putting an end to the years of uncertainty, and I can assure the House that no options are off the table to achieve that. We will continue to work tirelessly across Government and with British Steel’s owner to find a better outcome.

I cannot go into further detail at this stage. It would be damaging to British Steel’s workers and their families, the company and its supply chain for me to speculate on how events might unfold in the coming days and weeks while a live negotiation is under way and policy is being developed at pace. However, Members should be in no doubt that there is a bright future for steelmaking in the UK under this Government, and we believe that British Steel and its superb workforce at Scunthorpe have an integral role to play in it.

[Martin Vickers]

I thank the Minister for her comments. While it is welcome that work is being done through DWP and so on to support potential redundant workers, the reality is that Jingye is not involved in meaningful negotiations. The Government have been critical of it in previous responses to my questions. It is very obvious that Jingye has cancelled the raw material orders that are essential to keep the furnaces going; those orders were due in mid-May. When I was at the steelworks on Friday, I was told that unless another order for iron ore pellets could be placed this week, it would be too late.

The Minister was somewhat reluctant to go down the nationalisation route when I raised the matter a couple of weeks ago. However, the majority opinion in the area and among leading politicians is that nationalisation on a temporary basis is the only solution to keep the furnaces burning come the middle of next month. Can the Minister therefore confirm that it is something the Government are actively considering? It would provide an opportunity to rebuild the industry, hopefully secure new private sector involvement and convince the customers—most notably Network Rail, which gets 95% of its rail track from the Scunthorpe works—that supply will continue.

I have come round to the view that nationalisation on a temporary basis is, in this instance, the only way. It will secure the jobs and secure a future for steel production in Scunthorpe. I urge the Minister not to rule it out, and indeed to commit to it.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this urgent question and for his comments. I know we will continue to talk and have honest conversations.

Jingye is very much talking to us. As I said, I met Jingye with the Secretary of State and others on Friday, and we hope to do so again this week.

Our priority is respecting the workers, safeguarding jobs and retaining steelmaking. We have been clear in our belief that the best way forward is for Scunthorpe and British Steel to continue as a commercially-run business with private investment and with the Government acting in support, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that no options are off the table.

UK-US Trade and Tariffs

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Dealing with the erratic Trump Administration must be something of a nightmare for negotiations. The unexpected can always emerge from the White House, but one certainty is that tariffs were going to form part of the Trump agenda. It is somewhat surprising that the Minister is only today launching a consultation about the implications of retaliatory measures. Building on the previous questions about steel, will the Secretary of State at least acknowledge that the current uncertainty in the whole of the world market increases the pressure on the Government to acknowledge that further support will be needed for that industry?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He knows that I always have time for him to discuss the particularly challenging constituency issues that he faces through the position at British Steel. Just to be clear, today’s announcement is the formal step necessary to engage with British business about last night’s announcements. That is an important stage and the right way forward, and we have been prepared for it.

In relation to the other challenges around the steel industry, this is a particularly challenging situation—he and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) know that better than anyone. Our commitment, even in difficult circumstances, is absolute. We will continue with that, and I will continue to keep him and his constituents updated at all times.

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade to make a statement on the future of Scunthorpe steelworks.

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

First, my thoughts are, and the thoughts of all hon. Members will be, with British Steel workers and their families, following the company’s announcement of plans to close the blast furnaces and other steelmaking assets at Scunthorpe, and its commercial decision to consult on redundancies. This is not what we wanted, and I know how worrying it will be for all those involved. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who is in his constituency today engaging directly with his local community.

In the immediate term, we must support the people who work at British Steel. Our contingency plans have kicked in to ensure that all possible support is made available to British Steel’s workforce. Both the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education will have teams on the ground shortly to engage with employees for as long as necessary. We have asked British Steel that officials be given direct access to British Steel sites to bring their support as close as possible to affected workers.

This Government inherited a steel sector in crisis, and resolving the long-standing uncertainty around the future of Scunthorpe has been a priority from our first days in office. That is why, when we committed up to £2.5 billion of investment to support our steel industry, we earmarked substantial funding to support British Steel, in addition to the funding allocated to our new and improved deal with Tata Steel.

I confirm today that we have taken another significant step forward. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Business and Trade Secretary made a generous conditional offer of financial support to British Steel designed to deliver a sustainable future for the workforce, industry and local communities. In the light of the challenging fiscal context, this speaks volumes about our commitment to the steel industry. The offer follows months of intensive engagement with British Steel to reach a deal that meets our public accountability and legal requirements, works for local people and UK taxpayers, safeguards as many jobs as possible and ensures the company’s long-term commercial viability. The offer that we have made is conditional on British Steel meeting those key tests, which is consistent with our approach to similar investment deals.

The company must provide the commitments that we need, and which taxpayers would quite rightly expect, in exchange for substantial public funding. It is regrettable that it has not yet done so or accepted our offer. I therefore call on the company to reconsider its plans to announce early closures, accept our conditions and accept our generous offer, which remains on the table.

I assure the House that we are working tirelessly to find a solution. We believe that there is a bright future for steelmaking in the UK, and we call on British Steel to work in partnership with a Government who care deeply about the steel sector to put the business on a sustainable footing for the future and to put an end to the years of uncertainty at Scunthorpe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers]

I thank the Minister for her statement and for the updates that she has provided to me in recent weeks. As she said, there will be increased anxiety among the workforce today, and we look to the Government to provide maximum support.

For the sake of clarity, will the Minister confirm that the Government do wish to maintain blast furnace production until an alternative arc furnace installation is up and running? Will she also confirm that they want to maintain production to meet the demands of the defence sector, particularly in view of the recently announced increased spending?

The Minister will be aware of the projects that North Lincolnshire council have proposed, such as the green growth zone and those in the artificial intelligence sector. Will she confirm that she will support them? She will also be aware of other projects in the region that are looking for Government support. Will she confirm that she will look sympathetically on them? Also, although I would not want to advocate this, will the Government consider nationalisation of the industry as a last resort?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he has represented his constituents today and engaged with us previously. On the point of clarity, I confirm that we would rather the blast furnaces remained open. He knows that if they closed before a supply of steel were secured, that would be significant in terms of customer confidence and what will happen to the customer base.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about defence, as was said at the Business and Trade Committee yesterday, there was a reason why the Russians bombed the blast furnaces in Ukraine first: steelmaking capacity is needed not just for defence, but for building the structures required for construction. He was therefore absolutely right on that front.

This morning, I met the council and talked about both the plans for us to work together on British Steel and the wider question of what else we can do in the region and how the Government can support that. A small ministerial team has been coming together to think about those things.

On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, as he knows, the amount of money that we are talking about to develop new infrastructure is significant. Our preferred approach by far is that British Steel comes back to the table, talks with us about the offer on the table and we have that private sector investment in the future, but of course we are looking at all options.