Steel Industry

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make five simple points.

First, the Government are absolutely correct to intervene. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I have personal experience of the devastation that is wrought on communities by the closure of steel industries. Some noble Lords may remember that we once had a steel industry in Scotland, with 7,000 jobs in Ravenscraig itself and more than 20,000 jobs in the ancillary plants. I can testify to the absolute devastation of communities, individuals, workers and families from the 1980s onwards. The Government are undoubtedly correct to intervene on social grounds alone.

Secondly, whatever the Government do, there will be no free pass for the workforce. Let no one think that this is an easy way out. From my experience, I have seen steel-workers meet the challenges that these circumstances pose by getting rid of restrictive practices, increasing productivity, increasing efficiency and so on. In the case of Ravenscraig, it probably extended the life of the steelworks by 10 years or more. I hope that the workforce in Scunthorpe responds positively and constructively to the efforts of the Government intervening.

Thirdly, the Government are right to emphasise the crucial role of blast furnaces. This is not a mere technicality. These blast furnaces are designed to operate continuously, to maintain the high temperatures and reactions that are necessary in quality steel. Turned off prematurely, they will effectively lower production, decrease quality, increase slag and possibly render the whole edifice unworkable. A shutdown would force the entire steelworks, which relies on the furnaces’ molten iron, to cease operations altogether. Therefore, it is crucial—though it seems a technical point—that the Government are projecting and focusing on the question of the blast furnaces.

Fourthly, there is a matter of wider national and strategic importance. I was surprised by the spokesman from the Opposition Benches, who seems to have forgotten that it was the previous Government who sold this industry to the Chinese. We are constantly told, not least by the party opposite, that there is no firewall between the Chinese Government and Chinese industry. Did it never occur to anyone in the last Government that, in a competitive world, it may be in the interests of the Chinese Government to purchase British Steel and then close down the industry? If that was not considered then there was a gross omission of responsibility by the previous Government.

Fifthly, the potential loss of virgin steel-making capacity in the UK, which has not been mentioned, would be very serious. With the closure of the blast furnaces at Port Talbot, the only virgin steel-making, or primary steel-making, is in Scunthorpe. Should that close, the UK would be the only G20 country that does not produce its own virgin steel. For the uninitiated, virgin steel, also known as basic oxygen steel-making, is primarily used in industries that require high-quality steel for various applications, including construction, manufacturing, defence and transportation. It is produced from iron ore and coke, using a blast furnace process, which takes us back to the importance of that. Being the only G20 country that does not produce its own virgin steel raises immense questions around national security and whether virgin steel production should be retained as a sovereign capability. In my opinion, it should be.

It is therefore right that the Government explore every avenue to ensure that the social, economic, employment and national security implications of the present situation are addressed. Not to do so would be a dereliction of duty to the country as a whole. The Government deserve our support in what is a necessary national endeavour.

Tariffs: Canada and Mexico

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord raised several questions there. On the question of the UK and US, we have a strong economic relationship that is fair, balanced and reciprocal. As noble Lords know, the Prime Minister and President Trump discussed that on 27 February, when they agreed that we would deepen our relationship and have tasked teams to work together on a trade deal focused on tech. This is absolutely fundamental to us; the Prime Minister has been clear that he will not make any false choices between our allies—it is about our national interests. As the noble Lord rightly says, the Prime Minister has said that we are going further and we will work on an economic deal with advanced technology at its core—but these are early days to comment any further on this. Obviously, we will set out more details as discussions evolve.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend the Minister’s first reply, which, as I understood it, was that while of course we will confer with colleagues and allies across the world, we will not intervene—it is a matter for them to deal with the United States. I also very much commend the noble Lord’s second comment when he recommended that we use, to off-set some of the damaging effects of Brexit, the opportunities of Brexit to manifest an acceptance of our point of view on the high-tech industries, because those are the industries of the future.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. Advanced technology is one of the key industries in our industrial strategy, and certainly one of the important areas for our future prosperity. We are committed to continuing our work with both the US and the EU to remove barriers to trade and to help UK businesses grow. Our number one priority is the growth of the UK economy, and free and open trade with our most economically important partners will be key to its delivery.

Post Office: Executive Remuneration

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I pay tribute to my noble friend for the astonishing work he has done on this great travesty. I am very grateful to him personally for driving this agenda, and I agree in principle with some of the comments he has just made. There seem to be an air gap between arm’s-length bodies, the Government and Ministers. It is very important that this situation allows us to review exactly how the principle of arm’s-length bodies functions, in the sense that it does not mean they are entirely out of Ministers’ or the Government’s remit and our lines of inquiry. Noble Lords would expect that of us. They remain within reach, and the inquiry will allow us to have a significant investigation into how culture and practices can be improved in the governance of such institutions.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister said—well, as he implied—it is an absolute disgrace that people should be paid a bonus to turn up at a public inquiry. I am afraid it is not good enough for him to say that the Government did not approve it, because if they acquiesce in it, in practical terms they are giving their approval. So, will he take measures to disapprove of that payment? If he is not prepared to do that, I can tell him that, since retiring as a Minister, I have been at 16 public and other inquiries—so can he tell me who I write to for payment?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for submitting his claim for attendance at public inquiries. He is absolutely right. I have to be careful with my language for many good reasons, but the idea that we should reward staff for attending an inquiry of such seriousness did seem clearly out of kilter with how the governance should have functioned at the time. Two reports have been written, the Burton report and the Simmons & Simmons report, both of which are very clear on the governance of paying Post Office staff; that the remuneration committee should have clearer direction and more resourcing; and on how the department’s policy team should interact with the Post Office. The fact that there were not necessarily enough personnel in the department overseeing some of these arrangements is now going to be reviewed very clearly.

When the Horizon inquiry moved on to a statutory footing, the idea that you should reward people for attending what was effectively a quasi-judicial environment was of course a bit bizarre. It certainly would not happen in any other environment going forward. There are huge lessons to be learned, not just for one party or one Government but for the body politic and the institution of our bureaucracy, so that we do not have bureaucratic indifference. Ministers have the opportunity to take responsibility for doing the right things and to take an active part in organisations that perhaps we felt should be completely ring-fenced and separate. I do not believe that that is the right thing to do.