Live Debate: Commons Chamber

Ministerial statement: To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on the Government’s return to the Humble Address regarding Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I miss I wish to make a statement on the government's return to the Humble Address on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. I shall speak briefly because I am conscious of the time today. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have today laid before the House documents that the government has identified that the House requested in the 24th of February 2026. Humble Address covering the creation of the role of Special Representative for Trade and Investment in 2001. The appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and the advice of officials and Ministers.

This has not been straightforward. Departments have changed in the intervening years and most documentation was then paper based. In addition, we have had to be careful about not compromising the police investigation. I am glad to say that we have published 11 documents today, including the formal appointment proposal. Evidence that Ministers were content with the proposal. Internal communications, media and press briefings. And these documents speak for themselves, of course, and all hon. Members can read them. They're available in the vote office.

But I want to assure the House that we have proceeded on the basis of maximum transparency and have only redacted material that bears no relevance to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, such as travel proposals for other members of the royal family or content that would otherwise prejudice international relations. I reiterate the government is fully cooperating with Thames Valley Police in their investigation into potential misconduct in public office. I commend this statement to the House.

15:00

Dame Harriett Baldwin MP (West Worcestershire, Conservative)

- -

Ministers dem Harriett Baldwin. >> Ministers dem Harriett Baldwin. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I thank the Ministers for advance sight of both Ministers for advance sight of both the long version of his statement and the short version of his statement. So obviously, we support the Humble Address and we continue to support full transparency on this matter. So I just have a few questions for the Ministers. Is this. And I think he said this is not this is just the start of a full disclosure.

And if could he share with the House if there is going to be further disclosure, or is this the final amount? Can he give the House, if there are going to be further tranches, a clear and final timetable for when the process will be complete? Is the absence of a formal record of due diligence or any vetting process, evidence that the government itself raised no questions at the time about the appointment? And where, if anywhere, are the documented concerns or challenge from officials or Ministers at the time? And can I ask the Ministers directly, when will the full set of files that this House has requested relating to Lord Mandelson's role, particularly any advice, correspondence or due diligence connected to his appointment, be released to the House? Finally, the Ministers has a large trade envoy programme today under his responsibility.

So what due diligence is the government doing on appointees to that trade envoy programme? And are they following a code of conduct governing their behaviour today? Thank you.

15:02

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes, there was a long version, but to be honest, I was basically to be honest, I was basically reading out the written ministerial statement which we laid at 1030 this morning, and I thought that that was a bit much as I love the sound of my own voice. I'm not sure that the house does, so I, I thought I would go, I think I have united the house now, I thought I would go for the shorter version and to be honest, the papers do speak for themselves.

Will there be more? Was one of her questions. I suspect there won't. I think this is nearly everything, and I think this is everything we have come across so far. Certainly, of course, we will keep on looking, notwithstanding the complexity that there is about searching in paper based systems, in multiple different departments. And I guarantee the House that if there is more to publish, I will come back to the House with more. But I suspect that this may be our last tranche.

And she asked whether Ministers raised questions back at the time. I have published everything that relates to that period. That is, I think there is nothing else, I think, to be found. So the question so the statements that say that Ministers were content, I think, is, is the sum total of the response. And and I suppose to some degree that that is understandable, bearing in mind that the Palace had made it very clear that Her Majesty, her late Majesty, was very keen that Andrew be given a job, and Andrew was keen to take on the job.

And the job had previously been done by another member of the Royal family, and, broadly speaking, the same set of terms. I'm afraid I can't answer the question about the Lord Mandelson papers, for the simple reason that I've been trying very much to keep this Humble Address very separate from the other one, and we we had a different set of procedures to go through. I briefed members of the conservative frontbench and indeed members of the Liberal Democrat frontbench earlier this week when they indicated that they'd be perfectly happy if we weren't making a statement or an urgent question of any kind, because the papers speak for themselves.

On trade envoys, it's a perfectly legitimate point. I made the point last time around that whilst I understand the connection people make between the role that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor played and that modern trade envoys, they are actually very, very different, partly because of the royal nature of Andrew's role in the past, but also because all trade envoys that we appoint at the moment are, of course, members of either this House or the House of Lords. They're not only bound by and the code of conduct of this House or the other other House, but they're also bound in exactly the same way as any Ministers would be in terms of the code that is expected of them.

So we make all of this extremely clear to trade envoys. I've gathered the trade envoys since I've been appointed, I think, together on 2 or 3 occasions now. And whenever a new one is appointed, I sit, sit with them and go through the details. I can hear the hon. Member at the back, Chuntering in his regular application process for to be made a trade envoy and. And I'm still considering. I'm still considering his proposal.

15:05

Wendy Chamberlain MP (North East Fife, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Liberal Democrat spokesperson Wendy Chamberlain. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Ministers has so far given us two reasons for why his written statement or the statement he has just given at the despatch box is different from the one that was sent embargoed an hour ago. If it is the same as the written statement, why was it sent out as embargoed and dare I say it, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should say that transparency should not be trumped by time limits in relation to the business of this House, but it has been three months since the House passed the Liberal Democrat Humble Address to release the files showing how and why Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as a UK Special representative for Trade and Investment.

And in that time until today, the government has only published one written statement which told us very little. The Ministers has not previously come to the despatch box at all, and I do have to note the difference in relation to the Humble Address in the name of the official opposition for Peter Mandelson and the Humble Address that we are discussing now. Now the files we have seen show that there was no vetting by the government, and even without vetting, no questions appear to have been asked and the lack of documentation provided is itself concerning.

As is the time taken to get this far. The Ministers has said that he is not sure if there is more. Can I ask him when he will be sure and when he will release any remaining documents and the documents? We do have clearly show concerns about the potential for conflicts of interests. It started with golf, but we all know what came next. And why did that not lead to any scrutiny or vetting? Not just at the start, but at any stage during his tenure as an envoy.

The guardrails were not in place. The appointment came into effect over a year after Ministers said they were happy for it to happen, and the files also showed that the then Prime Minister had been aware from the start and also did nothing. There was time for those warning signs to be taken seriously. Why were no questions asked at all in that period? And in his written statement in the House earlier today, the Ministers excused the lack of vetting and oversight because it was a royal replacing a royal.

Does he agree that safeguards must be put in place for any future appointments like this? And can you please tell the House whether officials and Ministers were aware at the time of Andrew's connection to Jeffrey Epstein, which had already been established when this appointment was made? Was this connection monitored and can. The Ministers confirmed that, given their absence in this release, that there are no documents pertaining to communications with Peter Mandelson about this appointment?

15:07

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

Madam Deputy Speaker, if I'm >> Madam Deputy Speaker, if I'm honest, I'm a bit miffed by the attitude of the Liberal Democrat frontbench because I have regularly updated the Liberal Democrat frontbench ever since the Humble Address was brought forward. I have been as open and as as possible as with their frontbench, and they have indicated privately, regularly to me that they were perfectly happy with the progress that we were making. And there are some difficulties about which I thought we would be difficult for us to overcome.

In particular, the connection between this and the police investigation. We obviously don't want to do anything that would imperil the police investigation. I think all hon. Members would agree that if if the police were to find evidence and felt that the Crown Prosecution Service should take forward charges in relation to misconduct in public office, and we would all support the the prosecuting authorities in in doing their duty. And I explained all of this to her hon. Friends, and they indicated that they were perfectly happy with that process.

The. I had thought that the police might ask us not to publish some of the material. In actual fact, they were very. They'd been very cooperative and they've allowed us to publish everything. And we have done some minor redactions. As I say, some of those are in relation where it has absolutely nothing to do with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, for instance, in. When they're talking about the Royal Visits committee, when they're talking about visits by other royal members of the royal family. Then we haven't published that.

We've redacted that material out. And also where there are possibilities that we might be upsetting our international allies. But the she asked me in particular, therefore, about whether there are going to be any more papers that might be coming along. I'm not aware of any at this point. I suspect, as I said earlier, that this is the sum total of what we have now. She makes the point quite rightly, and I think a lot of people are surprised, of course, as I think we've known for some time that there was no vetting done, and it has been standard not to vet members of the royal family.

I, I she asked me if we were going to it, would we vet anybody else who was appointed to such a role? We have no intention of appointing anybody to such a role in the future and. But of course, we are grateful for the support that the Royal Family regularly provide. International visits around the world. The. His Majesty's visit to the United States of America. I think everybody, including those who disagreed with the visit, everybody has accepted that it was a great success and.

And I don't think we should be vetting His Majesty the King. And I don't think she's suggesting that either. So I think she was just trying to get grumpy with me and. And I think that I've, I've tried to answer all all the hon. Lady's questions, but I would I would reassure her honestly, we have moved at pace as fast as we possibly can. It's difficult to find some of the paperwork because it's. It is literally paperwork and the government departments have changed multiple times in the intervening years, but we have moved as fast as we can.

15:10

Rt Hon Mark Pritchard MP (The Wrekin, Conservative)

- -

Mr. speaker, can I just say, for the record, I've not made any formal application to be a trade and investment envoy, and I and investment envoy, and I previously was a trade and investment envoy under Prime Minister Theresa May. Now, in another place, what I am concerned about is that that particular programme is not cross-party. It was set up by then Lord Cameron, David Cameron, now in another place, and its strength. I felt Madam Deputy Speaker was in the fact that it was cross-party rather than full of mostly Labour members and Labour peers, so I just wanted to put that on the record.

The Ministers references the amount of paper and its paper based this exercise, but of course we haven't all gone to cloud overnight. And if we go down to Q and the National Archives, you'll find a lot of paper down there where we can actually obtain records going back quite a long time, not just the last 20 or 20 or so years, but I wanted to ask him on a on a more substantive point. And that is the role of the FCDO.

He will know as a former foreign Ministers that diplomatic telegrams are sent by embassies, often by ambassadors back to London and possibly even to the royal household. And I wonder whether any of those have been disclosed in the papers, which I have not had time to read today, because they've only just been laid. And then finally, whether any of those dip tells all a response to those dip tells have made their way to the office of senior royal officials in the Royal household, and whether they knew anything about the activities of the former Prince Andrew.

And who did they speak to about it and what action, if any, was taken?

15:12

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

Well. >> Says he's not applied for a post as a trade envoy. I mean, I don't want to show the house the text want to show the house the text messages he sent me. But anyway, and he makes a fair point. You know, I want to make sure that the trade envoy programme is one that is really effective and really delivers around the around the world. I was I was with Lord Alderdice the other day, obviously not a member of the Labour Party, the and the London Stock Exchange when the Uzbek National Investment Fund was being listed in the UK.

And we very much hope that his intervention in in Uzbekistan has been enormously important in helping and take forward some of these investments and into the UK and listings at the LSE. Indeed, we could see a further investment at the LSE, which would be the biggest ever listing here. We also have the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk, who's a conservative member, who's a trade envoy and does a good job, and I didn't understand the question he was asking me about.

We as I said earlier, we are trawling through everything we possibly can to see whether there is anything else that is of relevance under the Humble Address terms. But so far we have published everything that we have that is relevant and. And I can guarantee the House that if there is anything more, then of course we will come forward. I should I should just say that I was also asked about whether there was any monitoring of the relationship between Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein by the hon.

Lady speaking for the Liberal Democrats. I didn't answer that question, I apologise. I have seen absolutely nothing to that effect either. So if I had, I would have published it.

15:14

Kirsty Blackman MP (Aberdeen North, Scottish National Party)

- -

And Kirsty Blackman. have no desire to be a trade envoy. Aberdeen is the best place on earth, and I don't want to be anywhere other than there if I can help it. In terms of the statement that the Ministers of State made, he said people are still looking. Would he be willing to advise us if they stop looking? I appreciate that they are currently perhaps actively looking because there may be boxes that they have not gone through. Will he advise us at the point where there is definitely an end to this, unless somebody accidentally comes across something? And then the second question is in relation to the trade envoys going forward, I'm not sure how happy or comfortable or how changed the process is for appointing trade envoys, but can he give us reassurance that the process is much better than it used to be? And if it's not, can you give us reassurance that he will look at that process to ensure that we can all feel comfortable, that our trade envoys are the right people, or certainly not the wrong people to be doing that role.

15:15

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm grateful to her that she doesn't grateful to her that she doesn't want to be a trade envoy. I often feel as if I am a trade envoy for Scotland, because we're often securing good deals, as we just have in the GCC and for matter for that matter, in India, we've just done remarkably well. I see the hon. Lady for the for Plaid Cymru shaking her head. We've just done really well for Welsh lamb farmers in the GCC deal in the Gulf.

The will we will we will I come back to the House when we stop. I'm suggesting that we have. I don't think there will be any more material. I will come back, obviously, if there is more material and if I need to make a. Probably a written ministerial statement, I think, rather than an oral statement, just to say that we have no. Ceased the process and I will do that. She asked about due diligence. It's a it's a significant point. And of course, we do due diligence before anybody is appointed as a trade envoy under the present scheme, as I say, very different from what happened in relation to Andrew Matt Western wisdom.

Windsor rather. And the. And I should say that the DBT Select Committee is presently doing an inquiry on some of these issues. I'm very happy to talk about the present trade envoy programme with them, but obviously there are delicacies about what we say about the past in case we were to enter into a situation which could compromise the police investigation. I'm very keen not to do that. I'm very glad that the police have been very helpful to us today in enabling us to be able to publish everything we can.

15:16

Monica Harding MP (Esher and Walton, Liberal Democrat)

- -

And the final question. >> Monica Harding thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Downing Street spokesperson is currently saying that a further tranche of files relating to the appointment are to relating to the appointment are to be published at a future date, which is different from what the Ministers is saying at the despatch box. Perhaps he could clarify.

15:16

Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)

- -

Well, I to be absolutely clear, >> Well, I to be absolutely clear, I think this is probably the last tranche of material that we have. tranche of material that we have. If I had more to publish, I would have published it today. I haven't got anything more to publish, so if there were more stuff, I reserve the right to publish more, if there is more. But we're entering into speculation to some degree here. As I say, if there is more, we will publish it.

I don't want I, I have instructed officials all along to work as fast as we possibly can and to be as transparent as we possibly can, and that's precisely what we will do. But as I say at the moment, there isn't any more to publish. And by the way, Madam Deputy Speaker, we've got a great GCC deal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with the Gulf yesterday. And that concludes the statement. I'll just give the Frontbenches a I'll just give the Frontbenches a few moments to swap over. Park will now proceed to read the orders of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now proceed to read the orders of the day. Deal industry nationalisation.

15:18

Remaining Orders of the Day

Bill, Second Reading. >> The recent amendment, in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected. Ministers to move second. Reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

second. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that the bill be read a second time. Madam Deputy Speaker, for generations, the steel industry

15:18

Legislation: Second Reading of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

has stood at the very heart of our national story. From hundreds, from the furnaces of Sheffield to the docks of Port Talbot, from Scunthorpe to Redcar, steel forged not only the railways, ships and bridges and factories that powered the industrial revolution. Steel built communities, livelihoods and a sense of pride. In Britain. Steel made in Britain built our navy, helped defend our freedoms in times of war and laid the foundations for a modern infrastructure right around the world. When people speak of the United Kingdom becoming a great industrial nation, they speak of the skill, the resilience and the determination of steelworkers who helped shape that destiny by the fruits of their labour.

The decline of the steel industry destroyed jobs, diminished skills and damaged communities. But it never, ever diluted the pride, resilience and determination of those working people. Today, this Steel industry nationalisation bill repays, in part, the debt that we owe Britain's steel communities.

15:19

Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP, Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Hove and Portslade, Labour)

- -

15:39

Andrew Griffith MP (Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)

- -

15:55

Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, Labour)

- -

16:02

Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)

- -

strategy, which is so vital to our manufacturers, and they erected new trade barriers, making it harder for our steel producers to do business with their biggest export market across the channel. We have a duty to stand by this vital sector, especially as it navigates unprecedented challenges, including President Trump's unfair steel tariffs, China's anti-competitive state aid practices and the transition to environmentally transition to environmentally sustainable production methods. If we are going to foster a thriving steel industry, we cannot allow more producers to collapse, more jobs to be lost, or the risk of our last blast furnaces going cold.

So we, on these benches, broadly welcome this legislation as a temporary emergency and targeted step aimed specifically at turning around British Steel before it can be returned to the private sector. And we note that it is in this spirit that British steel producers also support this measure. The Liberal Democrats are clear that our country needs a vibrant, privately run steel industry. The sector can only be powered forward in the long term by private enterprise, not by government Ministers. So we will be closely scrutinising these measures and indeed the government's broader steel strategy to ensure that they move us in that direction.

We need to move on from a patchwork of last minute rescues to a long term plan that will set the industry on a truly sustainable footing. So right from the get go, we would have liked to have seen plans to find private co-investors who can help modernise the sites and create jobs. Putin's barbaric war in Europe threatens our national security. Donald Trump's reckless tariffs are undermining our economy, and the continuing conflict in the Middle East threatens business supply chains. All of these factors make the future of reliable domestic steel production more important than ever for whole swathes of our economy, which is why the government should ensure that industries that rely on steel, such as defence, are represented and involved in decision making.

Relating to this legislation. We also need to see stronger action from the government on improved trade with the EU, so that our steel exporters can benefit from easier access to their biggest market, and that our manufacturers get easier and cheaper access to the materials they need. A new UK EU customs union would be hugely beneficial in that respect. And last but not least, we need more ambition on the use of UK made steel within our domestic market. We welcome the government's target of boosting domestic production from 30% to 50% of UK steel demand, although there's no clear timeline for this, and we can't help but note the equivalent target in the EU is 75%.

And while we understand the difference between the two markets, we hope that the government will keep the target under review in light of uncertain supply chains and consider further incentives for the use of UK made steel in private sector projects. The Liberal Democrats know that nationalising steel producers is not the answer in the long term, and I would be. I would ask the Ministers if they could confirm confirm that the government also views this as an interim rescue measure. I would like to ask the Ministers what specific steps they are planning to take in order to ensure that British Steel becomes investable for the private sector, should this legislation be triggered? And as the Bill progresses through this House, the Liberal Democrats will be carefully scrutinising the use of secondary legislation with the aim of maximising accountability.

Many of the measures in this Bill will be implemented with negative resolution procedures, and I hope the Ministers would agree the affirmative procedure would offer more meaningful parliamentary engagement. I'd urge the government to ensure that Parliament is given proper transparency over costs associated with this legislation. Clauses 53 and 54 set out the process for the valuation of relevant businesses and the calculation of any compensation that might be paid to previous owners. And while we understand that valuations will depend on factors specific to each business, the government should publish detailed information about the criteria taken into account and must ensure that Parliament will be given the opportunity to scrutinise proposed valuations and compensation amounts, and I'd ask the Ministers whether they have considered granting powers to the Business and Trade Select Committee to scrutinise spending on these measures.

Lastly, I would like to ask the Ministers if they will update the House on whether and to what extent this legislation will impact impact employee pension schemes and what conversations have been had with the pensions regulator to that effect. Looking at the broader state of the steel sector from the 1st of July this year, the government's new UK steel and trade measure will impose tariffs on imported steel. And while we understand the need to temporarily, temporarily bring in such protections due to the disruption caused by US steel tariffs and cheap subsidised Chinese exports, this measure will have a significant impact on manufacturers who depend on steel as a key business input.

My hon. Friend for Harpenden and Berkhamsted raised this morning in DfT questions about a firm in her constituency, Dynamic Metals, which is facing a bill of approximately £3 million to import the specialist steel grades that they require for their services. And I welcome the government's aim to encourage domestic production and the purchase of steel from UK steel companies. Some specific grades of steel are not domestically produced and therefore the government is harming the purchasing powers of UK businesses. So will the government commit to re-examining the application of tariffs on certain grades of steel to ensure that they do not inadvertently damage domestic buyers? It is important to note that the measures in this bill are subject to a public interest test, but there are limited details about what this test will involve.

Will the Ministers allow Parliament to scrutinise the criteria for the public interest test and publish a detailed report setting out why they believe they have been met? How will the Ministers ensure that the aim to protect vital infrastructure and manufacturing sectors is balanced with sustainable energy commitments? And will they confirm that Jingye is financially responsible for any environmental damage caused when calculating compensation? What considerations will be made for the effective workforce to ensure that jobs and skills are protected? The government is right to be taking action to protect British Steel, but nationalisation must be a temporary step to rescue businesses before they can be returned to the private sector.

We are supportive of the government's pace and urgency in action to assist the steel industry, but we need more details on the longer term vision and I'd be grateful if the Ministers could outline in his response the reassurances that I have asked for in my speech, which includes how will the government ensure that the steel industry becomes investable for the private sector following nationalisation? How will Parliament have oversight once the powers in this bill are triggered, and how will Parliament be provided with transparency regarding the costs associated with nationalisation? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

With a five minute time limit. Jessica Morden.

16:08

Jessica Morden MP (Newport East, Labour)

- -

Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, and I very much welcome this bill to give the government new powers to intervene in the steel industry, where it's in the steel industry, where it's in the public interest to do it, and I welcome it because over many years, alongside many other steel years, alongside many other steel MPs, we've relentlessly made the point that the steel industry is of the utmost importance, strategic importance to this country, for our economy, for our security.

And we must do all that we can to protect and to cherish it. So whilst the focus of the legislation today is on the future of British Steel, and I very much pay tribute to the efforts and the advocacy, fantastic advocacy from the hon. Member for Scunthorpe. We do know that it also sends a clear signal about the government's commitments to the industry and workers as a whole. As the Ministers know, steel is very important to my constituency in Newport East, both at Tata's Llanwern and Steel two, and I know the steel Ministers met with representatives from Llanwern this week, and I pay tribute also to the steel unions, like my hon.

Friend earlier, particularly community and GMB, which I'm a member of, and also Reg Gutteridge, who's the newly elected national chair of Community Union and I know will be an excellent advocacy advocate. My asks really are. I completely understand the significant funding had to be made to help keep British Steel in Scunthorpe open, but it's also really, really important that producers and steelworkers in Wales get their share of the government's billions of pounds of investment through the National Welsh Fund funds to invest in other sites such as Llanwern.

And it's also really important that Ministers talk to Tata to urge them to follow through on the future investments they've previously talked about, including in Llanwern. I really welcome the Steel Strategy, the first time we've ever had, when the party opposite had 14 years to set up his strategy and didn't, and we had this revolving door of steel Ministers continuously, and I'm afraid their woeful approach and the amendment to date just continues that approach. It's a real our approach is a real roadmap for the future.

I welcome the new import quota and tariff levels to cut the amount of foreign made steel coming in to protect us from global oversupply. But there are concerns, as others have mentioned, that downstream plants, the import quotas for galvanised steel and hollow sections allow too much leniency for highly subsidised products from non-EU countries to come into the UK market and undercut manufacturers such as lamb wounds, where we really ask the Ministers to look at that. Ministers will also be aware the industry's concern about the timing and design of UK CBAM, so it'll be really keen to hear more about that and on procurement.

Like my hon. Friend said, we're doing great, great work on procurement and it's a big part of the steel strategy. But I am aware from Seven Steel who can, you know, have proved over and over again they can supply high quality products for HS2, but still seeing some contracts for foreign made steel being made. So please, can we check into that and raise it with H s to to all energy is always an issue with our underlying costs still far more expensive than our European rivals.

So can I join others in saying can we have further look at more targeted support? So that's a view us from me today. But I very much welcome the bill today. And clearly, the direction of travel that this government has on steel. And can I end by also recognising and acknowledging the deep industry expertise and knowledge that this steel Ministers brings to the job. It's recognised in our plants and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's hugely, hugely refreshing after the last government. Good year. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not support. This bill. And I believe that. right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Way forward, that I. Will clearly set out now of the devastating impact this is real time about to have in my time about to have in my constituency. We have a great local business called armadillo, who is a British run family business. They

16:12

Stuart Anderson MP (South Shropshire, Conservative)

- -

British run family business. They started with a couple of people in 1976 in Mortimer, South Shropshire now, I've recently been to Clive Betts to meet with Paul, Chris, Ben and the team, as well as Rob Cooper from the British Stainless Steel Association. And this business was founded by Paul Slingsby, who's at 75, is still working in the business today, and they are the UK's largest privately owned supplier and stockholder of stainless steel long products. With over 1200 customers, about 20% of the UK's market.

They know what they're on about. And when this announcement on tariffs was announced, they were completely blindsided. They had not been told and none of their customers or suppliers or people they were involved with knew anything about this. They came straight to me. I've written to the Ministers multiple times. I've had one response, but they need to sit down. The Ministers needs to sit down with the largest British business in this industry and have a serious conversation, because at the moment, the big issues that they're facing is the tariffs that cover the stainless steel products and they produce they bring in products that cannot be made in the UK.

There is not enough quantity or type currently at the moment. You cannot get them. And the government wants to protect steel industry a vital strategic, important. I get that they also want to protect jobs, but for almost a thousand jobs they will save. There is many more thousands that will be lost. And I'll say exactly where the UK cannot meet domestic market demand and a huge gap will be created. Businesses like armadillo will be forced to import. Tariffs will drive up costs by 50%.

The cash is not there across the industry to be able to absorb these extra costs without mass redundancies. These costs will then be passed on, meaning the manufacturer costs will go up. What happens then? The customer will buy the finished product from manufacturers overseas at a lower price. And these projects are products are not then subject to tariffs. It's not levelling the playing field for us, and the UK, as I said, doesn't produce enough stainless steel at the right type or quality to meet demand.

Now, armadillo currently have 5000 tonnes of stainless steel in stock. As it stands today, 2000 tonnes of that and I repeat, 2000 tonnes is stock that cannot and is not made in the UK. And it could to get some of these skills right, take up to 15 years to do large diameter bars of certain grades are not made in the UK, and these bars are vital to key industries like aerospace, defence, pharmaceuticals, oil, automotive, general engineering and many more.

So if the tariffs are putting on on these businesses, they are literally going to be priced out of the industry. And this is the largest British business in the UK. In this field. There are many, many others. So I really hope the Secretary of State can see the importance of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this. And what I believe. What I've said is, I believe briefly. I'll save him from driving home

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll save him from driving home the point even greater because I understand the passion with which she's speaking. The company's she's speaking. The company's referring to armadillo. I will look into this personally. The intentions of the measures that I intentions of the measures that I brought in is to protect the domestic production and the possibility of domestic production. possibility of domestic production. It is not in order to prevent goods that we do not make here, and do not intend to have the capacity to make here to suffer.

So if there is a specific issue, I will look into this because I do not want negative impacts from downstream for which are not, and we don't have the capacity to do do to produce here. The Trade Ministers said earlier that he would look into this as well. Us as a team. We will look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

into these issues. The Secretary of State for saying that, and I will follow up saying that, and I will follow up personally with him with armadillo, if we can talk on a way forward, because I actually said to armadillo, I believe this is an armadillo, I believe this is an unintended consequence of what the government are trying to do. And once I point this out, clearly, once I point this out, clearly, there will be a way forward to look at it. And the long and the short of it, I'll put my speech to one of it, I'll put my speech to one side is there's a certain size of rod that only the UK can make when it gets past that size.

And I was watching that at their facility a few weeks ago. It is not made in this country, but it is needed by so many of those critical industries. And where you're looking at the steel as a whole, it's just this one part of the stainless steel industry. And if the Secretary of State or one of the Ministers will sit with me and the team at armadillo, they will be able to see within a matter of minutes where this gap is and how to plug it.

And it's a long the the blanket sort of grading for all of all of these bars. But I request that there can be a just a pause for, say, six months sit down, or if in a matter of days can be talking with armadillo to look at this, because there is a massive knock on impact that is seriously going to hurt the stainless steel industry. And what is one of the largest employers in my constituency is going to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

massively hurt by this. Yeah. And with a three minute time limit that will get most but not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

limit that will get most but not all members in Andy McDonald. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I warmly welcome. This bill. And the action the government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the action the government. Is taking to protect Britain's steel industry. I congratulate the Ministers, the Member for Stockton North, for the for the sterling work he's done in bringing this legislation before the House. Steel manufacturing is a strategic national asset. It underpins our infrastructure, transport system, energy security, defence capability and industrial future. It is too important to be left entirely to the private sector. For many of us representing industrial communities, this debate is deeply personal.

On Teesside, iron and steel built towns, livelihoods and identities from the early 19th 19th century

16:18

Andy McDonald MP (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Labour)

- -

onwards, generations of skilled workers helped forge modern Britain

16:18

Stuart Anderson MP (South Shropshire, Conservative)

- -

workers helped forge modern Britain with Teesside Steel and, as Chris Wray said, the ships and bridges, they were all delivered from Sydney

16:18

Andy McDonald MP (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Labour)

- -

they were all delivered from Sydney Harbour to the Cisco Bay. But over the decades those industries were systematically weakened. The deindustrialisation of the 1980s and 90s hollowed out communities and 90s hollowed out communities across the north and across Britain. And then in 2015, the conservative government allowed the Redcar steelworks to close, with devastating consequences for 3000 workers families and a further 6000 in the wider Teesside economy. Whereas in in Ilva, the Taranto plant, the Italians intervened to save that plant.

The French did it. Florence. But this government, the government, previous government sat on its hands. The truth is that a different choice could have been made then in Redcar, just as a different choice is being made now, the government could have intervened back in the day to preserve strategic industrial capability. This bill signals something very important a government once again willing to play an active role in shaping industry and growing the economy. And it does so pragmatically. It creates a framework for the state to step in when markets fail to protect industries of strategic national importance.

It allows intervention, including public ownership where necessary, when the loss of industrial capacity would damage the national interest. It is common sense people understand the sectors where the public interest must become before narrow private gain. We've already seen this government adopt new models of public intervention elsewhere, but we need a serious strategy for reindustrialisation and growth. That means backing British business through a strong public procurement strategy, delivering a long term pipeline of orders. If public money is funding railway schools and hospitals.

ET cetera, then wherever possible, the steel for those projects should be made here in Britain by British workers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

David Chadwick thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker, and. I'd like to start this. Contribution on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Contribution on. A positive note for the steel industry. Last week I visited Kiernan Steel's fabrication workshop in Llandrindod Wells. Kiernan steel is a tremendously successful Irish company that has brought much needed jobs to brought much needed jobs to Radnorshire, and their success shows how the rural economy can prosper. If our businesses are prosper. If our businesses are encouraged and enabled to locate. One thing that there's no shortage of in mid-Wales is land, and if we make that land available to businesses that need it, they will create the jobs our region and our

16:21

David Chadwick MP (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, Liberal Democrat)

- -

economy needs. The steel industry is critical to our wider economy. It's virtually impossible to build It's virtually impossible to build anything without steel, but the steel industry does require a skilled workforce, and I was encouraged by some of the comments encouraged by some of the comments that the Secretary of State made about the skills shortages, because that's something that we're seriously lacking in. There are seriously lacking in. There are thousands of vacancies for welders alone. Their pay is shooting up because of those shortages.

And because of those shortages. And those skill shortages throughout the steel industry are therefore pushing up the price of building anything, particularly delivering infrastructure. And that's why the health of our steel industry matters. Without looking after it, we will see the costs for projects like HS2 and the cost of delivering all of the housing that we need, continuing to mount. Yes, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To my hon. Friend. For taking intervention. I was interested in the comment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was interested in the comment about the shortage of welders. Would he agree with me that the government's plan for construction colleges of excellence, including colleges of excellence, including the one in my constituent Bury South Edmunds, will be crucial for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the provision of welders. There are 6000 vacancies, at least for welders, so absolutely we least for welders, so absolutely we need a lot more of them. Those skill shortages present opportunities to get future generations into well-paid and secure trades. I cannot do welding yet because it doesn't have any arms yet. Our education system is not producing the skills that our economy needs, and our economy is suffering from that failure. Steel is strategic. It's part of our sovereign capability and it's part of British power.

That's why steel matters. The steel industry, as has already been mentioned today, is affected by the geopolitical tensions that are so rampant across the world. Our steel industry has been hammered by the Chinese, who have flooded the international market with cheap Chinese steel and have run one of our biggest companies into the ground. China has wiped out our steel industry intentionally. Yet the Conservatives seem to be saying today that they don't think that the government should do anything about it. Just yesterday, they were complaining about our lack of defence readiness.

Well, where do they think tanks and ships? What do they think they are made from? Yeah. Madam Deputy Speaker, today this this government asks Parliament to move heaven and earth to save steel in Scunthorpe, and it's right to act. Of course, the government should have these proposed powers, but people in Wales are asking one simple question today where was this bill in July 2024, when the blast furnaces at Port Talbot were switched off for the last time, when Welsh communities were crying out for help, Westminster shrugged his shoulders and that was despite Welsh Labour MPs and candidates lining up in front of a giant election posters saying save our steel.

In the months prior to the general election, they said that they had a £2, £2.5 billion fund for spending on steel, and given that the government has admitted to spending £1.3 million a day to keep the Scunthorpe plant going, how much of that fund is left to spend in Wales if protecting primary steel production is so important, why did they allow the biggest steelworks in Britain to be turned off? Welsh workers were told that there was nothing that could be done.

People in my constituency have lost their jobs because of this. When 2800 jobs were wiped out in Port Talbot, there was no emergency Saturday sitting, no recall of parliament, no emergency legislation and no sudden

**** Possible New Speaker ****

declaration that steel was a vital national on. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like to start Deputy Speaker. I'd like to start by paying tribute to my friend, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe, my Northern Lincolnshire neighbour, Northern Lincolnshire neighbour, long time champion and campaigner, to protect and secure the future of to protect and secure the future of Scunthorpe steelworks, which is essential to the fabric of the town

16:25

Melanie Onn MP (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, Labour)

- -

and a critical part of its identity. The government is right to be taking the steps needed to bring British Steel back into public ownership. Having our own sovereign steel making capacity is crucial to ensure the UK's defence and infrastructure security Jingye have failed. As custodians of British Steel in Scunthorpe, they've had the opportunity to do the decent thing and come to an agreement before the government are forced to use the powers in this bill, and we will wait to see whether they do indeed do that.

I know that the Ministers has a deep understanding of iron and steel making, and I'm sure that he will agree with me that resolving the ownership issue for British Steel will allow an ambitious future for the business to be realised. It will allow a plan to be brought forward and that will attract investment. The UK management and workforce at British Steel have been working in an impossible situation, while the government have been negotiating with the current owners, and I hope that the current leadership will be empowered by the government so that they can make the necessary decisions to deliver the positive future for the business that the town really deserves.

The trade unions, community, unite and GMB have worked consistently hard to keep steelmaking in the UK, and I wonder if the Ministers could take the opportunity to confirm that both management and the trade unions will be enabled by the action being taken today to deliver the positive future that everybody really wants to see for steelmaking in the UK. Broadly, Scunthorpe is home to one of the largest very large pieces of industrial land in the UK, and the proper development of this land could develop not just Scunthorpe or indeed my constituency, but the whole of the UK.

The Ministers needs to set out what plans he has to work with North Lincolnshire local authority and other partners to make the most of those opportunities, because what we don't want to see is, is, is a first come, first serve situation where perhaps the best users and custodians of that land are not given the opportunity to to take on that, that land, because it has to be the right company who will ensure that the proud history of manufacturing in Northern Lincolnshire continues long into the future.

And will the Ministers please confirm that that will be his approach as we look to the future?

16:28

Richard Tice MP (Boston and Skegness, Reform UK)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, it's exactly seven years since I've been calling for taking since I've been calling for taking British Steel at Scunthorpe into public ownership. The Conservatives rejected my splendid advice and the rejected my splendid advice and the chaos that we've seen here as as a result of that. And in opposing this bill, they show that actually this bill, they show that actually they don't care about the sovereign NATO nature and importance of steelmaking. They don't care about the thousands of highly skilled jobs, and they don't care about the communities and the families around them.

They have no understanding of its importance. And I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Ministers of State for bringing this forward as the first bill in this new King's speech, I did say to his predecessor that he should show some cojones and get on with it. And I think that is what we are now seeing. But alongside this support from our Secretary of State, what I would say is we now need to see the vision. We now need to see the plan and how it is for the long term.

And I'm concerned that there's a sort of little quiet will quietly let the blast furnaces just disappear, go cold and replace it with an electric arc furnace. We need a big, bold vision to renew re-align, rebuild at least one blast furnace around the world. Hon. Members. 50% of all new steel making capacity in the last five years is blast furnaces. It is the strongest, most robust primary steel. I know. The Ministers of State is a great fan of direct reduced iron, and he has a point there.

But nevertheless, we should not expose ourselves to putting all of our bets on electric arc furnaces when we know that the price of electricity is at a crisis high level, we need diversity in this. Rather like my late grandmother, when she looked at the deserts available for Sunday lunch, she said, grandson, have a little bit of each. And I believe with regard to steelmaking, let's have let's have. Madam Deputy Speaker, let's have a little bit of each. Let's have a bit of primary steel and let's have a little bit of electric arc furnace steel to ensure that we always retain the skills and the importance of the sovereign steelmaking capability.

So I hope that the Ministers and the Secretary of State will produce that vision, that plan, over the coming weeks, so that we can have confidence and that the jobs and the communities can have confidence that steelmaking will be retained

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and invested in for the long term. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. I represent. A constituency.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Built around steel and manufacturing, now home to Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Steel Processing and Distribution Centre, the largest in the UK, in Wolverhampton and Willenhall. Steel is our history, it's our identity and with the actions taken by this

16:31

Sureena Brackenridge MP (Wolverhampton North East, Labour)

- -

and with the actions taken by this government, I. I sincerely believe it will continue to be our future. To the Steel Nationalisation Bill marks a serious and necessary step towards safeguarding the long term future of the UK steel industry. It gives the government the power to bring steel companies, including British Steel, into public ownership, where it is in the public interest to do so. This is safeguarding Britain's steel capability and capacity, which is firmly in the national interest, protecting jobs and our communities, and that matters profoundly to places like mine.

I'm calling for British procurement as well. So British Steel is used to build our railways infrastructure and wind turbines on national renewal runs through communities like Wolverhampton North East, through the skills of our workers, the strength of our industries and future based on good, secure jobs and apprenticeships, apprenticeships. I also sincerely believe that this decisive action would not have been taken under the approach we saw from the previous conservative government. Since 2010, we've seen a litany of missed chances and, in my opinion, moral failures.

That is why it is welcome that this bill reflects the seriousness with which we treat domestic steel production and the communities that depend upon it, and that certainty is being recognised by the industry. As UK steel has said, this provides vital reassurance for workers, customers and supply chains at a critical moment. Recognising steel as a strategic national asset is essential to economic growth, national security and resilience. I also support the ambition of the government to boost domestic production from 30% to 5050%.

However, I do ask the Ministers to look at tariffs on imported steel, but using evidence based discussions on specific codes and engage with downstream firms who are concerned about the measures. Madam Deputy Speaker in Wolverhampton, Willenhall and across the Black Country, we understand what steel represents. We understand the value of secure, well-paid, skilled work. So for our workers, our apprentices, our supply chains and for the long term

**** Possible New Speaker ****

strength of the United Kingdom. I support this bill and commend it to the House. Terrible. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. Now, in March of this year, the government released its steel strategy, which was talking about taking bold steps to talking about taking bold steps to help grow the industry and the bold steps that we have in front of us, granting powers to nationalised and industry. And in six weeks time, introducing a 50% tariff on imports of steel products that can also be made in the UK. And I come back to this because it is a really, really important point.

Now, it does sound admirable to protect British Steel. I completely understand that. But it is a decision that has been made without consultation with the industry, because if they had consulted with the industry, then I wouldn't have had to meet with my constituent, Alex Bailey, last week, who was absolutely desperate about the prospects of his future business, a business which employs 70 people with a 35 million

16:34

Sarah Bool MP (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)

- -

turnover. He owns Dynamic Metals, which is one of the UK's largest independent stockists of aerospace independent stockists of aerospace high grade metals, which are obviously very specialist steels tested to high standards to be tested to high standards to be suitable for use in aircraft. Now the issue he faces deals on three particular product types, which is particular product types, which is 12, a 14 and 27. I'll spare everyone the further details, but everyone the further details, but firstly I'll give you some more.

I'll write to write to the Ministers for sure. Firstly, none of this can be realistically made in the UK. The government has provided a list of potential suppliers, but the majority of those, including British Steel, only make commercial, not aerospace grade steel. And the only one that might is SS UK, which is currently in liquidation. Secondly, due to the way that the legislation has been drafted, as Alex explained to me, there is no way that customs will be able to differentiate between a generic steel and a specialist steel, as they use the same HS codes upon import, so this really needs to be revisited.

And thirdly, the level of the quotas set is far too low. Product 12 A is subject to a 31% reduction in the quota allowance, and now there is a tiny quota being introduced for 14 and 27 where there was no quota before. All in all, Alex has no option to be able to eat and wait his order book requirements. But to incur

**** Possible New Speaker ****

These tariffs and the additional burden that he's going to have to pick up on the 1st of July, £3.2 pick up on the 1st of July, £3.2 million. He will be bankrupt within six months if this measure goes ahead. And he is not alone, as we ahead. And he is not alone, as we have heard in this House, hundreds of businesses are in the same position. As Alex said, this is a classic of legislation which has been written with noble intentions to save the UK steel industry, but to save the UK steel industry, but due to a lack of consultation, lack of industry knowledge by the authors and a total misunderstanding of the knock on effects, the single piece of legislation will kill steel, stockholding and manufacture in the UK.

So can I ask, perhaps, that when the Secretary of State is looking into the case raised by the Member for South Shropshire, he might also meet with dynamic metals because without prompt action now they will run to much more significant issues down the line. Come the 1st of July.

16:36

Mr Jonathan Brash MP (Hartlepool, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Madam Speaker. >> To move towards the nationalisation of British Steel is the right decision for our economy, the right decision for industrial communities, and the right decision communities, and the right decision for Britain's national security. And I say that as somebody who does believe in the value of enterprise competition and a strong private sector, but there are clear cases where privatisation has failed the national interest and where government has not only the right to intervene, but a duty to do so, and particularly in cases where you're dealing with a foundational industry that is foreign owned.

I was stunned that the front bench of the Conservative Party, when asked a straight question whether they would prefer British Steel to be in the hands of the Chinese or the British. They couldn't simply answer the British. They avoided the question. It's staggering disregard for our country's national security, because steel is not just another commodity. It's fundamental to our national sovereignty. It underpins our defence industry, our infrastructure, our energy sector, our manufacturing base. A nation that cannot produce its own steel leaves itself vulnerable, dependent on the decisions, priorities and interests of others.

We have moved into a different era and listening to some of the contributions opposite, you would believe we were still in the 1990s. Globalisation is dead and to be honest, I welcome its death because all it ever did was leave working class communities like mine behind, ripping out the heart of industrial communities like Hartlepool. But the tragedy is we still in this country import 68% of our steel needs. That is a tragedy that we must fix, because if public money of British taxpayers money is to be sent be spent, then British industry must benefit.

If we're building British warships, British Steel should be used. If we're. If Britain is building offshore wind farms, then British Steel should be used. If we're building new nuclear. As we are in Hartlepool. Thanks. The deal we struck last year in September. Than it is British Steel that should be used. So we must. And this is my biggest plea to the Front bench. We must radically reform procurement policy in this country. I welcome the steel tariffs that are being put in place, and the assurances by the Secretary of State that he will look carefully at those individual cases, but we must put our country first.

This bill is critical to doing that and protecting working class

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communities that I represent. Thank you, madam. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And it probably won't come as a surprise to members opposite, but I fundamentally disagree with the last week. I appreciated his passion, but I fundamentally passion, but I fundamentally disagree with his because I'm proud. I'm proud that we're the only party in this house. I know the Secretary in this house. I know the Secretary of state's getting a bit excited. I'm going to come to him in a minute on tariffs, but I'll say

16:39

Saqib Bhatti MP (Meriden and Solihull East, Conservative)

- -

minute on tariffs, but I'll say we're the only party in this House objecting to this bill for the right reasons, because Secretary of State repeatedly talked about making this country stronger. I don't think this bill does that. I think by nationalising, I just do not think governments can run that we've got at the moment in the government. And actually I just think they will create inefficiencies, push up prices, and actually it will be the taxpayer that ends up stomaching the cost of that. So this does not make us stronger.

It makes us weaker. And actually, the hon. Member that just before me said, we're taking it back to the 1990s. I think this government is taking us back to the 1970s by pushing up those costs and lumbering the taxpayer, and hopefully a future conservative government will have to unwind some of the real harm that will come to fruition. And of course, no, no one opposite can tell us where will this nationalisation stop? Will it be ceramics tomorrow? What will happen? Which industries will they pick and choose? But let me come on to the issue of tariffs and the limited time that I have, because I was also visited, like my my hon.

Friend earlier by a constituent of all the hon. Friends who raised this by Peter Watson of Davidson. And I've written to the Secretary of State about this, and I. It was only last week, so I respect that he may not have had time to come back to me, but I hope he does. It's the UK's leading mezzanine manufacturer and the briefing that he put in front of me as a result of the tariffs and the quota reduction. So on merchant bars, it's a reduction of almost 97% and an increase of 50% in quotas.

And for all the best of intention for whatever he wants to achieve, the reality is industry and markets do not work to the whims of government. They will not move quick enough to do that, and that will push up prices. In fact, the briefing I saw will mean that there will be an almost doubling of quota of per tonnage steel by the 1st of July. That is a cost that will have to be borne by industry. That is a cost that will be borne by taxpayers.

Because if we're talking about nuclear, nuclear power plant creation or HS2, of course, those are taxpayer funded projects that will have to bear those costs. And I would say to the the Secretary of State was listening to the Prime Minister yesterday at PMQs. It's clear that they obviously recognise there's an issue coming down the track. I would argue this should have been anticipated before the tariffs had come into place. But look, we are where we are. So I've written to the secretary saying I really would welcome some serious action on this.

I know my my my hon. Friend made a really eloquent argument about a delay in introduction on that. If that's not going to happen, he's shaking his head. If that's not going to happen, then let's look at those HS codes. But he does need to recognise that there's going to be a serious impact on steel industry, and also the peripheral industries that rely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on steel manufacturing in this country. Madam Deputy Speaker steel is what Yorkshire Tea and Yorkshire what Yorkshire Tea and Yorkshire are to God's own county, what the hotpot is to Lancashire and what black cabs are to London, what the black cabs are to London, what the ledger is to Doncaster and what the hood is to Haxey. It's about us, it's about what makes us. It's about what drives us. It's about about what drives us. It's about pride. British Steel is at the heart of the UK's industrial heritage was the backbone of the

16:42

Lee Pitcher MP (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, Labour)

- -

heritage was the backbone of the industrial Revolution, driving global infrastructure and enabling military military pre-eminence. It was key to our maritime defence and major capital infrastructure. Someone said to me this week, there is history that has been made, but more importantly, there is history that we can still make and we need to make it right now, right here with British Steel, the British. The future of British Steel matters not only to my neighbour in Scunthorpe, but to communities across North Lincolnshire, South Yorkshire and beyond, including people in my own constituency of Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme.

Some who work at Scunthorpe and all of whom are deeply affected by the fortunes of a major local industry, the Steelworkers at Scunthorpe are doing work that is essential to this country, is highly skilled, technical and sometimes dangerous work. They deserve respect for what they do and they deserve certainty about the future of the industry they have helped to sustain. That is why the bill before the House is so important and whilst my interest is local, the issue is absolutely national.

By nationalising steel, we can ensure the UK does not become the only G7 country incapable of producing its own primary steel, stopping reliance on foreign imports. This is not nostalgia for the past. It's not about keeping an industry going just for sentimental reasons. It's about recognising that that still is a strategic national asset. If Britain is to build the homes, railways, energy infrastructure and the defence capability that we need, then Britain needs steel. If we're serious about industrial resilience, national security, economic growth, then we cannot be indifferent to whether we retain the capacity to make steel here at home.

The steelworks at Scunthorpe are not just another private asset on a balance sheet, they are a vital part of our industrial base. Once that capacity is lost, it's not easily rebuilt and once those skills are gone, they're not easily recovered. The government is right to bring forward legislation that gives the Secretary of State the powers needed to act where the public interest requires it. Public ownership should only be treated, should never be treated lightly, but nor should it be ruled out when a vital national industry is at risk.

The test here is straightforward does Britain need steel? Yes. Does Britain need the skills and capacity represented at Scunthorpe? Yes. Would it be in the national interest to allow that capacity to disappear? No. That is why intervention is justified. For the workers at Scunthorpe, for the communities that depend on those jobs in my constituency and for the future strength and resilience of our country. This Bill deserves the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support of this House. It. Which brings us to the front Baldwin.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baldwin. Jingye. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and this has been a really interesting debate because I really interesting debate because I think it's brought out on the government benches, the strategic government benches, the strategic love of nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation. And I think what we've tried to do in our think what we've tried to do in our reasoned amendment is put out a different approach. We also heard very clearly from reform that they also are in favour of nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation and actually what we have in this bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker, is something that is neither going to satisfy our camp or their camp, because, in fact, what we have here is a chaotic, unplanned, non strategic journey which is ending up burning through taxpayers money. At every stage, we can see that the decisions that the government has taken since it came

16:46

Dame Harriett Baldwin MP (West Worcestershire, Conservative)

- -

to power have actually delivered the worst of all possible worlds the worst of all possible worlds for this crucial industry. Now, I promise, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I that I wouldn't take any interventions in the interest of interventions in the interest of time. We've seen here an emergency intervention. It's one with mounting public costs, and those public costs have no clear limits for the taxpayer. And this for the taxpayer. And this legislation is certainly not going to put things on a secure footing.

We were told this time last year, when we were brought in on a Saturday for the first time since the war, the Falklands War, that nationalisation was not the plan. And yet the Prime Minister went to China with the Secretary of State and failed to secure a deal for British Steel. And so we have this bill that doesn't resolve any underlying Instead, it just opens the door to an indefinite and infinite. Not only that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it's got a sunset clause in it.

Which would you believe? It can be extended indefinitely. There are far too many unchecked powers in this bill. It doesn't address, as the chair of the Business and Trade Select Committee mentioned, that Britain has the highest energy prices in the developed world, and you can't have an industry in industrial policy for steel unless you have an energy policy for industry. Now, in addition to the chair of the Select Committee, I think we had a very interesting speech from the Liberal Democrat spokes person about how how we could turn this into something that's temporary emergency, and the path to returning this to the private sector.

And then we have powerful interventions from these benches. From my hon. Friend from South Shropshire, my hon. Friend from South Northamptonshire, and my hon. Friend from Meriden, who spoke up very, very clearly for the businesses in their constituencies that are going to be so badly affected as of the 1st of June, with an inflationary 50% tariff on imported steel. So really, this afternoon is a chance for Ministers to answer some questions. Why were the government unable to strike a deal with the Chinese owners? When exactly did the government decide that nationalisation was the right path? Did they decide it before the Special Measures Act was introduced? And if so, why was the House not told it at the time? Why should the taxpayer, Madam Deputy Speaker, be the one who foots this bill? How is this value for money for the taxpayer? Do we even know what the total cost is to the taxpayer from these ongoing losses, these the capital investment and the enormous liabilities? This bill commits the taxpayer to the ownership of an asset that loses hundreds of millions of pounds each year.

So what assessment has the Ministers made of the chilling impact the measures in this bill will have on other inward investors into the United Kingdom? And what is his exit strategy, if he has one? If the government proposes to nationalise a steel company on the basis that it meets the public interest test, then can the Ministers explain how, in the future that same asset could ever be returned to the private ownership without contradicting their own public interest assessment that it's in the national interest? Or is the reality that once this threshold is crossed, the British taxpayers locked into permanently underwriting a loss making asset with no timetable for it to return? And why is there no requirement in this bill? Madam Deputy Speaker, for a proper impact or value for money assessment before the Secretary of State exercises the powers, and why have the government not taken us up on our cheap power plan, which addresses one of the root causes of this sector's difficulties, and can the Ministers commit urgently? And I think I heard him say it from a sedentary position, but I'd like to hear him say it again urgently, to look at the impact of these 50% steel tariffs on our steel manufacturing sector.

So to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, this House should not be required this afternoon to sign off on a blank cheque. We cannot and we will not support legislation that appears to be nationalisation in search of a rationale. So I urge all colleagues to support our reasoned amendment.

16:50

Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Stockton North, Labour)

- -

Ministers Chris McDonald. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. You know, as I was preparing for the debate today, it struck me that 60 years today, it struck me that 60 years ago this summer, this House was debating steel nationalisation, and the England team went on to win the the England team went on to win the World Cup. And we're back here discussing steel nationalisation again. So I have high hopes for the summer. But, you know, I, I sometimes it is informative to learn a bit from the past.

And if we go back to that steel nationalisation of 1966, the Ministers Ministers of Power opened the debate and he said there is no manufacturing industry of such basic importance to the British economy. Of course he was right then, and it's true now. But the steel industry isn't so good that you nationalise it twice, you nationalise it thrice because, of course, the steel industry was also nationalised partly in 1948, and the Ministers of Supply, when he moved the motion there, said without steel, the life of Britain would collapse.

And that is absolutely true as well as we've heard from the contributions of people in the House today. And as the Ministers for industry, part of my mission is to increase the productive capacity of our industry and what we have seen in the steel industry and what we saw, particularly in the steel industry in the last 14 years of the Torfaen, was productive decline. They presided over the loss of great steel plants and also a reduction in the productive capacity of those steel plants.

But the thing is that decline in market share from 80% to 30% of market share was not inevitable. It was a choice, a choice borne out of inaction, a choice borne out of a lack of industrial policy. And the reason that this nationalisation bill is so important now is exactly the same as the reason it was important in 1966. There has been a great technological shift in the industry. Then it was continuous casting. Now it is electric arc furnaces. The industry has been de capitalised by years of underinvestment.

It needs to be recapitalised and productivity has fallen off a cliff. Under the previous government, it fell repeatedly following the closure of the Redcar blast furnace, and productivity must be improved. These are not the words of someone who is wedded to some sort of socialist principle of nationalisation. These are the words of someone who spent his life in the steel industry, ran a business in the steel industry, and is dedicated to improving productivity in our industry. Now, I heard the words of the shadow Ministers when he launched the debate, and I have to say I was I was quite disappointed because he and I met earlier this week, and my colleagues behind me might be surprised to find that he was very thoughtful and also very probing in the questions he asked me.

And he raised some really interesting points. And we had a good discussion. And I thought about the points afterwards and I thought, that's, you know, that's really interesting that he's that he's thought about those things that we will have to bear in mind when we pass this legislation. But then what's he done? He's fallen into his usual trap, their usual trap of presenting this as an ideological debate, instead of a debate about the function of an industry, an industry that is vital to this country, and that is how they prosecuted this debate.

But you see, I learned something when I was working in the industry because two years ago I was running a business in the steel industry. 20 years ago, I was working at the Scunthorpe steelworks more than 30. In a moment more than 30 years ago. You won't believe it. More than 30 years ago, I left school and I got a job in the steel industry, and there were a lot of changes over that time. You know, sometimes I stayed in the same job, but the company changed the sort of badge on your hard hat, changed all of those sorts of things.

When a change from British Steel to to Corus, as it was at the time, that was a big blow to people in terms of how they felt about it. But I'll tell you one thing I recognised ownership matters and it makes a difference because strategy matters. It matters where the head office of the business is. People care about the local area, where they work. Those things are important. And you know those workers care, those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communities care. We care. They don't care. That's quite clear to me. I'll be very brief. I thank the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll be very brief. I thank the Ministers for his remarks. There is one ideological difference that he hasn't mentioned once, which is the hasn't mentioned once, which is the huge gulf between our side and his party on energy, and you are not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going to have a sustainable, sustainable steel industry on energy. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. You're right, there is a gulf there. They were in favour of some of the highest industrial energy prices in the world. We we have delivered an increase in the supercharger benefit from 60% to 90%. The introduction of the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme and through our investments today in chemicals, in ceramics and of course, in steel, we are supporting British industry with their operating costs on energy and their capital costs to improve their productivity as well. Now, steel communities, they are proud people.

They are people who can stand on their own two feet and they want to they don't want subsidies. They've got pride. They've got dignity in their work. And as I saw when I went to the Corby steelworks quite recently, the sacrifice of individuals and communities for their hard and dangerous labour as well, and that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way. I thank the Ministers for giving way, and he knows the sacrifices have been made by my constituents in Motherwell. Can I ask the Ministers to confirm that this mill remains at the heart of the UK steel strategy, and that the legislation that we have debated today provides a potential safety

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today provides a potential safety net for the future of DL. Thank you. Thank you for your intervention. I have to say that intervention. I have to say that the. Whilst the government is minded to nationalise British Steel, we don't have any other nationalisations in mind. However, I will say we do recognise the importance of the DL and I am concerned to ensure that it gets back up and running and delivers those steel Shipley orders, and I'd like to thank her for the work that she's been doing, championing that.

I'd also like to thank who sat behind me, the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, who has supported me throughout the preparation of this legislation but can't speak because of her position in the House. And likewise, the Member for Scunthorpe, who also supporting the passage of this Bill, but again, can't speak because of his position in the House and the Chief Whip, of course, who did so much work in advance of this bill coming here as well. But first, let me give at least 1 or 2 minutes to the amendment that was proposed.

Now, fundamentally, there is a contradiction in the position of the opposition in that if without passing this bill, then British Steel itself is trapped in this position of the Steel Industry Special Measures Act, which they were supportive of. And so they don't want to allow British Steel to break out of that. But I would point out to them, and certainly the members opposite, who feel that the bill takes too many powers to the Secretary of State. The bill has been modelled on the Banking Act, and at the time when the Banking Act was passed, there was a fellow over there called George Osborne.

I understand he's popular in Tory circles, and he said, I will do everything I can to help this bill onto the statute. And I think what we're hearing is it is good enough for the bankers, but it's not good enough for the steelworkers. So we move on. In terms of private sector investment, I am as concerned as the secretary, shadow Secretary of State, and of course, the spokesperson from the Liberal Democrats is to get in private sector investment. We have carried out a very careful balance with this bill to ensure that the steel industry is fully informed, understands our intentions and is supportive, and they are supportive.

And that is why we heard recently, just in the last couple of weeks, seven steel announcing a 100 million private sector investment in the steel industry in the UK. So there is no chilling effect on this. In fact, this will be a spur for private sector investment. It will be a boost to private sector investment. Let me just mention some of the contributions that we've had. The chair of the Select Committee, he mentioned a number of things, but he was the only person, I think, to raise scrap.

And we've launched a scrap working group, which will be which will be dealing with that issue. The Member for Newport East rightly raised the importance of the steel plant. It is incredibly important. And, of course, as she mentioned as well, import penetration on Riva, my near neighbour, the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, the Member for Hartlepool, of course, as well, the Middlesbrough for member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland could not have been clearer in the way that the the Tories abandoned the steel communities in Teesside, and the difference that this Labour government is making, and a number of the members opposite mentioned tariffs, the tariffs in this Bill.

But as you heard from the Trade Ministers this morning when he was stood at the despatch box and the Secretary of State this afternoon, then there is an open door for companies to come in and discuss those issues. And then finally, the Member for Boston and Skegness, the Member for Boston and Skegness. He and I have had many exchanges around steel, and sometimes we've agreed and sometimes we haven't agreed, but we always have a good discussion. And he raised he raised the the importance of a dry blast furnace and electric arc furnaces and we will certainly have the opportunity, I think, for him and me to discuss that much further.

Look, I think it's quite clear the British government is not and should not be neutral when it comes to British business. We are on the side of business. We are on the side of British business. We are unashamedly on the side of the steel industry and steel communities. That's the difference between us and them. I commend this bill to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The original question was that the bill be now read a second time, since when an amendment has time, since when an amendment has been proposed as on the Order Paper. The question is that the amendment The question is that the amendment be made as many as are of that opinion, say I, I. Contrary. No, no. The The question The question is that the amendment be made. As many as of that opinion, say I.

The

17:00

Division

17:15

Adjournment: Imprisonment of Craig and Lindsay Foreman in Iran

their travels. Lindsay, who is a positive psychologist and life coach, planned to study. As part of

17:15

Tony Vaughan KC MP (Folkestone and Hythe, Labour)

- -

17:26

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

09:00

Oral questions: Business and Trade

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page