Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Alan Strickland Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice]

The Father of the House is absolutely spot on. The net-stupid-zero policies have been catastrophic across the piece, and I fear that those very policies are the reason why people are concerned about the possibility of opening an electric arc furnace. That puts even greater pressure on the need to have a renewed, brilliant, wonderful blast furnace capability for the next 50 years. If we achieve those things, we can bring in private sector capability with a pro-British procurement strategy. That will give confidence to all.

It has been mentioned that the Bill would somehow prevent other investment from the private sector. The discussions that I have had with overseas pension funds and overseas sovereign wealth funds suggest exactly the opposite. They suggest that, with this sense of commitment—what I like to call a joint venture with the core asset, under public ownership—we will attract more international investment, because people will know that there is a long-term commitment as opposed to the wibbly-wobbly, flip-flop approach of previous regimes. That is the reason that we need to get on with this. We need to ignore any delaying amendments.

Let us have the vision. New clause 5 would require the Government within three months to set out that 10-year vision and 10-year commitment to the blast furnaces and others in the steel undertaking, to ensure that we have a vibrant and, ultimately, viable primary steel-making capability in the United Kingdom.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill and comment on a number of the amendments. I do so as a Member of this House who represents a proud manufacturing constituency, which includes a number of industries that rely on steel in a variety of ways, from the rail industry and advanced manufacturing to the cluster of innovative defence and space-related companies at NETPark—North East Technology Park—in Sedgefield. Steel is not only used by some of those companies, but extensively used in their supply chain. It underpins manufacturing not just in my seat, but across the north-east and many other constituencies in the country, as we have heard. I have also campaigned successfully to protect sovereign supply of key materials in my constituency and the wider economy. Given the importance of steel to our national security and national critical infrastructure, it is crucial that we get our approach to steel right.

So what does this mean? First, as hon. Members across the House have said, we need to ensure that the Government can act quickly and with agility. That is why I have concerns about several amendments, which, as other colleagues have raised, could slow down the Government’s ability to act decisively. That appears in a number of amendments but, for example, amendments 2, 3, 18 and 19 and new clause 2 seek to impose additional requirements on Ministers before they can act using the provisions of the Bill. Others have gone into some of the specifics, but my concern is that when considered in the round, these proposed changes would have the cumulative effect of hampering the Government’s ability to act and to act swiftly. It is critical that Ministers can act because that is the key purpose of the Bill; that is why we are here debating it today.

Why is it important that Ministers can act quickly, and why might some of the amendments be a challenge? Because, as we are discussing, when a steel plant faces significant challenges and the Government are minded to intervene, Ministers need to achieve three things. First, they need to be able to provide certainty about the future of the business, which helps sustain the workforce and gives certainty to its supply chain and reassurance to its contractors. We have heard Members talk from their private sector experience—I myself worked in regeneration and housing previously—that when there is doubt about the future of an industry or a particular business, or there is a particular commercial concern, we know that when business confidence starts to fall, if action is not taken quickly, the lack of confidence in the supply chain and the contractor chain can do serious damage.

The second priority for Ministers must be to minimise risk. We know not just in this process, but in other similar processes undertaken by the public and commercial sectors that the longer the process, the higher the commercial and legal risk and the more likely it is that we will not get the outcome we desire. It was that desire to act swiftly and show significant national leadership that, as hon. Members mentioned, is why we were all recalled last year on a Saturday, to intervene quickly in the steel sector.

Thirdly, and crucially, the reason that speed is important is if this is agreed, it is important that Ministers have the powers they need to enact the will of Parliament quickly. Quicker intervention in circumstances like this, given the factors we have discussed, is likely to be more successful, particularly in complex cases as we see at British Steel in Scunthorpe.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point about the need for speed in these circumstances, but perhaps he could explain to the House why the endless resetting of a sunset clause, contradicting the whole purpose of a sunset clause, plays into the need for urgent action right now? Or does he agree that it is something that should be looked at again and does not need to delay any of the effective action for which he is calling?

[Alan Strickland]

Ministers will speak for themselves, but I think they are seeking the flexibility to act in the national interest and to do so appropriately. My concern is more with some of the clauses that add lots of prerequisites to what needs to happen before Ministers can act. My view is that in the limited, and hopefully rare, circumstances where Ministers do feel the need to exercise these significant powers, they need to be able to act quickly, and that is what we are discussing today.

Several of the amendments relate to concerns around value for money, which of course is an incredibly important consideration. It is important for all of us to remember that one of the key reasons we are here today is precisely because Ministers have said that they want to do more to ensure value for money for taxpayers delivered in the Government’s potential intervention in British Steel Scunthorpe. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry was clear in May that the Government intended to bring this legislation forward precisely because Ministers were unable to agree suitable terms with the current owner of British Steel that represented a

“responsible use of public money,”

so value for money has been a key driver of ministerial action on this matter and the reason we are debating it in the Chamber today.

I turn to new clause 5, which the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) was just describing. I am sort of slightly astonished that Reform, a party with no plan for steel, has put an amendment demanding a plan for steel. I am pleased to tell Reform Members who are here that we already have one. The Labour Government, as the Minister mentioned, published the UK steel strategy in March. It clearly addresses a number of the important points that the hon. Member rightly mentioned earlier, including specifically the need for the public sector to buy more steel. A year ago in June 2025, the Cabinet Office published guidance—procurement policy note 22—that required public bodies nationally and locally, and their executive agencies, to ensure that UK-produced steel is routinely considered in public procurement and that this is done at an early stage in the process, so the mention of public procurement around steel in that amendment is redundant. Ministers have already issued clear guidance on that some time ago.

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Alan Strickland Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

We continue to seek those reassurances and the plan behind them. As I mentioned, with regard to the Scottish elections, a specific meeting between the management of Royal Mail—its CEO—and the election authorities in Scotland is coming up to discuss exactly the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raises.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

I met a resident at my surgery at the weekend who has a long-term health condition. They have been sent testing packs by the NHS, which arrive late, and appointment letters have been delayed, which is having a huge impact on their health. When the Minister meets Ofcom later, will he raise the serious impacts of unacceptable Royal Mail delays on not just our residents, but our national health service?

[Blair McDougall]

I will certainly raise my hon. Friend’s concerns about important medical post with Ofcom. Royal Mail is part of the critical national infrastructure and can reach every part of the country, and its ability to deliver such things is a business opportunity, and it needs to get that right.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Alan Strickland Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill, particularly as a Member of Parliament representing a proud manufacturing seat. Our country as a whole has a proud tradition as one of the world’s leading trading nations, and exports remain a critical part of our modern economy.

Here at home, British companies continue to lead the way through innovation, research and development and high-tech manufacturing, building on our rich industrial history, but we all know that the global marketplace is changing rapidly, so it is crucial that to deliver the Government’s growth mission to spread prosperity across the country—including to constituencies like mine in the north-east—Ministers have the flexibility they need to support businesses in a changing world. That includes the provisions in the Bill to increase the funding cap for Government support to industry and increase the financial support provided by UK Export Finance to British businesses.

There are three reasons why these changes are important. First, it is crucial that we can support UK firms to compete in an increasingly complex and contested global economy, as other hon. Members have mentioned. As we see the growth of tariffs and protectionism making world markets harder to navigate, it is right that UK Export Finance should have an increased ability to provide the financial support that exporting businesses need.

I see that in my own constituency, which is home to a number of world-class companies who trade their products all over the world. Between them, they employ many thousands of local residents. They include innovative SMEs such as Filtronic, which recently secured a £47 million global order for satellite communications technologies; Kromek, which supplies radiation and biological weapon detection equipment to the US, Ukraine and our European allies; and Roman in my home town of Newton Aycliffe, whose showers and bathroom products are sold to hotel chains all over the world. Those manufacturing businesses, designing the next generation of products—each leaders in their respective fields—are exactly the enterprises that we as a Government want to encourage and support. That is why increasing the limit on UK Export Finance funding, and the Government’s wider work on these matters to support modern manufacturing, is so crucial.

Secondly, I am proud that the Government are prepared to intervene to support British business to thrive, acting confidently to crowd in investment and to step in to support the long-term future of major industries. Unfortunately, as we have seen over many years in the north-east, that stands in sharp contrast to the previous Conservative Government, who too often stood by while businesses failed, jobs were lost and regional economies were damaged when strategic intervention by the state could have made all the difference.

Of course, this is not a power that should be used lightly, but it can be an important tool when Government intervention can be the deciding factor. We have seen the value of this approach since Labour came to office in the decisive action taken at British Steel in Scunthorpe and at Jaguar Land Rover in the west midlands. I am proud that this Labour Government do not just talk about supporting modern industry but roll up their sleeves and get on with it.

The third and final reason is that while innovation, ingenuity and industrial prowess are found across our nation, for too long that has not been matched by an equitable spread of Government support across the many communities we serve. Since the election, I have been pleased to see UK Export Finance and other Government funds support businesses in a wide range of communities, and financial support for industry provided in traditional manufacturing areas that have often previously missed out. To kick-start growth and ensure that that growth benefits everyone, it is important that innovative firms are supported wherever they are found.

In conclusion, this Bill is very welcome, and as we work hard to support British firms in an increasingly complex global economy, it is vital that we give Ministers and Government bodies the flexibility they need to respond in an effective and agile way. The Minister said that this is a straightforward Bill, but as part of the wider package of measures we are taking to support industry and exports, the positive impacts that these measures could have on growing our economy and supporting UK business will be incredibly important.

UK Modern Industrial Strategy

Alan Strickland Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

It is very important that we show the British people that the added investment and huge increase in defence spending from this Government will see real economic benefits for them and opportunities for their families, as well as fulfilling the core function of national security. My hon. Friend mentions devolution. We have measures in the strategy for local areas, whether or not they have mayoral leads on innovation and mayoral growth funds, many of which build on the very successful work of Andy Burnham, my Labour mayor in Greater Manchester, and Richard Parker in the west midlands, who have done brilliant things. Those are the most developed and mature mayoral areas. We can see what has worked in those places, and it really is starting to work. Let us have more of that across every bit of the UK, tailored for local needs and with the right tools that those political leaders need.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

I welcome this incredibly ambitious industrial strategy. I will ask specifically about our high-tech SMEs. At NETPark in Sedgefield, we have a cluster of more than 40 businesses making satellite components, medical imaging equipment and other high-tech products. However, as the Secretary of State knows, too often they struggle to get private finance, and they have struggled in the past to get Government innovation funding. How will this strategy really put the rocket boosters behind high-tech SMEs in regions such as the north-east?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I always take a close interest in success stories from the north-east of England, and what my hon. Friend outlines is incredibly exciting. The high-tech SME cluster that he talks about will benefit in many ways from each of the sector plans, whether they are in advanced manufacturing, creative industries or defence. There are provisions on access to finance for them in this strategy and the dedication of resources from the defence budget, for instance, for that sector. Those businesses are set to fly, and with this industrial strategy my hon. Friend has a real chance to build and communicate the opportunities for them over the next few years.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Alan Strickland Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

I strongly welcome the proposed increases to minimum wage rates, which will help people of all ages across all communities in our country. There is a particularly welcome boost for apprentices, who are the future of our economy. Those increases will make a real difference to people in my constituency and across our great nation, for three reasons.

First, as colleagues have said, we must make work pay; that is vital for the health of our economy. It is crucial that we ensure that those who contribute to our economic growth, deliver services in our communities, and manufacture the goods that we need are fairly rewarded, but for too long, that has not been the case in my constituency, or in other areas. Between 2014 and 2022, salary growth in County Durham was among the lowest in the United Kingdom, increasing at less than half the rate of the growth in regions such as London. To tackle these issues, we need to drive economic growth in regions like mine, but we also need clear action to ensure that those on the lowest wages see the growth in their pay that they deserve.

Secondly, it is crucial that we tackle the cost of living crisis. In the two and a half years I spent campaigning as a Labour candidate before being elected to this House, the cost of living crisis was raised with me time and again. Family after family has been hit by rising bills but flatlining pay. That issue affected my local residents particularly acutely, because median weekly pay for those in full-time work in my constituency is £150 less a week than the UK average—that is £600 a month less to pay the bills and make ends meet. That is why it is so vital that this time, the Government have taken the cost of living into account when setting minimum wage levels.

Thirdly, we must support growth. If we are to grow our economy, routes into work—including apprenticeships, entry-level jobs and other routes into starting a career—must be attractive. A key part of that is having pay levels that reward those going into work and incentivise participation in the labour market. For young people in my constituency, getting a job with decent pay has too often meant moving away from the town they grew up in. That is another reason why this direct action to tackle low pay is so important. As the representative of a constituency with a significant history of manufacturing, including modern manufacturing, such as in the fantastic Hitachi trains factory, I particularly welcome the wage increase for 18 to 20-year-olds, and for those on apprenticeships. It will ensure that young people going into work, who are the future of our country’s manufacturing sector, are paid properly, and that a secure future is possible locally.

I came into politics to make a genuine difference to the people of my home town of Newton Aycliffe, the wider constituency, and our country. Increasing the minimum wage is one way to do that, putting more money into the pockets of 3 million of our citizens. That is the difference a Labour Government make.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Strickland Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. He is right to recognise that fireworks are used at a number of events throughout the year, but it would be wrong to characterise that as people having to expect that there will be noise. There is now a sufficient number of lower-decibel products on the market for everyone to act more responsibly, and we will be exploring that in our meetings over the coming weeks.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

4. What progress his Department has made on developing an industrial strategy.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

10. What progress his Department has made on developing an industrial strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

This Department and, indeed, Departments across Government are working extensively on developing our industrial strategy, which the Conservative party opposes, but which business and industry welcome. Last month, we launched the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council, comprising a very impressive group of the UK’s top business leaders, policy experts and trade union leaders. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade attended the council’s inaugural meeting on 17 December. In addition, we are currently analysing more than 3,000 responses to the Industrial Strategy Green Paper from businesses, academics, think-tanks and unions, and their insights and feedback are incredibly valuable as we develop the strategy.

[Alan Strickland]

I strongly welcome the inclusion of defence in the draft industrial strategy and was pleased yesterday to host a roundtable in Sedgefield with the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry. Many of the innovative small and medium-sized enterprises that we talked to spoke of the struggles that they have with red tape, bureaucracy and contracting with Departments across Whitehall. How will Ministers grab the opportunity of the industrial strategy to remove this red tape, which too often can thwart SME growth?

[Sarah Jones]

I am really pleased my hon. Friend held that roundtable. It is quite a turning point to have an industrial strategy with defence as one of the sectors; building new relationships across Departments with colleagues who work in defence is a really powerful and important thing to do. He speaks to a wider problem face by a lot of industry when it comes to dealing with Government agencies and Departments. We are working hard to make these things easier, because growth is our priority and we have to break down those barriers.