Jaguar Land Rover: Redundancies

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I remind Members that the Minister has 10 minutes, the shadow Minister has five and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson has two, and that statements are an opportunity for Members to question the Minister, not to make statements of their own.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government’s support for Jaguar Land Rover and our wider automotive sector. I offer my apologies on behalf of the Secretary of State, who is on his way to France to talk to our trading partners there.

As the House will be aware, Jaguar Land Rover recently announced approximately 4,000 redundancies as part of a £1.7 billion cost saving effort, and the company now intends to consult on the job losses that are planned over the next two years. Although Jaguar Land Rover has stated that these losses will not impact production staff, the news will undoubtedly come as a terrible shock to all of the company’s employees.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have been in regular contact with the company and the relevant unions since the Government became aware. We have made it clear that we want to see the company reducing the impact on workers through the consultation period and that all employees deserve maximum clarity on the extent and focus of its plans for non-production workers, which the Business Secretary and I encouraged the company to do earlier today in a meeting with the company and the Unite general secretary.

We recognise, too, the impact that those redundancies will have on local skills. There is a deep advanced manufacturing skills base in the west midlands, and this Government are working together with employers and the combined authority to retain that skills base within the regional economy, including by backing Mayor Richard Parker’s £500,000 support package for JLR workers taking voluntary redundancy. The Department for Work and Pensions also stands ready to support anyone affected through its rapid response service, which provides support and advice to employers and employees facing redundancy, including help with finding new work and training.

Hon. Members will know that, over recent years, Jaguar Land Rover has been forced to confront a series of challenges, many of which have been shared by vehicle producers all over the world, which I will say more about shortly. One of the unique challenges the company faced last year, however, was a significant cyber-attack that temporarily halted production for several weeks. However, with help and support from this Government, including a £1.5 billion loan guarantee, it resumed operations and reopened assembly lines. Make no mistake: when British industry is attacked, we will step in to defend it, and defend it strongly, in our national interest.

In this case, however, Jaguar Land Rover has cited global market conditions as one of the principal reasons for job reductions. Indeed, similar announcements from manufacturers such as Volkswagen and BMW underscore the challenging global headwinds that nearly all automotive manufacturers are facing right now: tariffs, high energy costs, the transition to electric vehicles, and stiff competition from overseas producers.

We recognise those challenges, and are using our modern industrial strategy to help our car industry to rise to them. Through our DRIVE35 programme—driving research and investment in vehicle electrification—we are ploughing more than £4 billion into our automotive sector to support the electrification of vehicle plants alongside batteries, electric motors, hydrogen fuel cells and power electronics. It is the biggest investment in our car industry of the post-war era. Jaguar Land Rover has benefited from that funding, with £40 million of public and private investment going into advanced software-defined vehicles, supply chain resilience and lightweighting. Alongside that funding for innovation and next-generation technologies, hon. Members will know that the Government have made a considerable grant investment into Agratas’s gigafactory in Somerset, which is strengthening not only the UK’s battery production capability but the automotive industry and companies like Jaguar Land Rover, which will benefit from a secure domestic supply.

When it comes to energy costs, our British industrial competitiveness scheme will save more than 10,000 manufacturers up to 25% of their electricity bills. This will almost certainly include some of the biggest companies in the automotive sector, including Jaguar Land Rover. The successful applicants for that scheme will be announced soon.

On global market conditions and tariffs, this Government have acted decisively to secure trade agreements that support our nation’s car manufacturers. Our economic prosperity deal, for example, includes a preferential rate of 10% on the first 100,000 UK-made cars exported to the USA each year. The US is obviously a major export market for Jaguar Land Rover—the biggest, in fact—as it is for so many other high-value manufacturers in the UK, which is why we worked so hard to secure that deal. We remain the only country in the world subject to a 10% tariff for automotive exports, with other nations facing a much higher rate.

We have placed just as much importance on vehicle exports in the other trade deals we have negotiated since taking office, including the landmark agreement we secured with India—an agreement that reduces tariffs on British-made vehicles from roughly 110% to 10%. This is a significant win for Jaguar Land Rover and other manufacturers, as India is already a huge market, with consumers set to grow by millions in the coming decades as the country’s economy fast expands.

I should also touch on the zero emission vehicle mandate, which provides a clear pathway to phase out new petrol and diesel cars and vans. We always said we would keep it under review. We always said that we needed a pragmatic and balanced approach. That is the right thing to do, because discouraging the production of electric vehicles does not make good business sense for anyone. The fact is that consumers want them, with recent stats showing that for the first time in the UK, electric vehicles have outsold petrol cars over a 12-month window. Europe reached a similar milestone recently.

Electric is the future. As part of our ambition to reindustrialise our country, we absolutely want those electrical vehicles to be designed and built in Britain. A mandate to steer the industry into that electric future is needed, but, equally, if we accept that zero emissions is the destination, we have to partner with industry to get there. I know that Jaguar Land Rover is of that view too. We are consulting with the company and other manufacturers to ensure that the ZEV mandate works for our automotive industry—that it strikes the right balance, with targets that are ambitious yet realistic. The consultation on the ZEV mandate review closes on 23 October.

Jaguar Land Rover remains our largest car manufacturer. It is a linchpin of the UK automotive sector—a company with a long and proud history. Over many decades, it has become synonymous with the best of British design and engineering. That is true for past models such as the E-Type, the XJS, the F-Type, and it is true for the firm’s modern line-up, including the Land Rover Defender and the Discovery. These vehicles endure. Years after production ended, I note that the Jaguar I-PACE is still a vehicle of choice for companies operating driverless cars in the US and those testing them here in the UK.

With last week’s launch of the new fully electric Range Rover, I am confident that Jaguar Land Rover will get past this difficult period. It will emerge from it stronger and more competitive, holding its own in the global car market against the best of them from Germany, the United States and China.

For our part, we will use our industrial strategy and DRIVE35 to support JLR and the British automotive sector in this journey. In doing so, we will guarantee Britain’s status as a proud, successful car-making nation for many years to come. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

This is a day to talk about the workers, who are deeply worried and are being communicated to by Jaguar Land Rover about the future of their employment, so I do not wish to be too political in my response. I will say, however, that I understand that it is the job of the Opposition to take fire at the Government, but we have to be careful in this House to make sure that industry is not collateral damage.

The hon. Lady talks about the supply chain. JLR has been very clear, publicly and in private to us and to the unions, that the production staff are not going to be impacted. This is not Jaguar Land Rover retreating from investment, lowering its ambitions and withdrawing from markets. The organisation is as ambitious as it has been, and it has as good a product—a world-beating product—as it ever had.

The hon. Lady asks what we are doing to tackle the headwinds that Jaguar Land Rover has cited when talking about this decision. There is a little bit of a habit developing in this House of the Conservatives asking why we are not fixing the damage that they did quickly enough. The British industrial competitiveness scheme that is coming in never existed under the previous Government. It will save an enormous amount for automotive manufacturers and their supply chain.

The hon. Lady rightly mentioned trade deals and recognised our trade deal with the United States, which no other country enjoys. We can all understand why she did not mention the relationship with Europe and the impact of trade deals that we inherited there, which Ministers across the Government are working incredibly hard to deal with at the moment—for example, with “Made in Europe” and rules of origin.

Finally, we inherited the ZEV mandate from the hon. Lady’s party—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) says from a sedentary position, “Well, change it.” We did change it. We changed it last year, in part to help plug-in hybrids, which was of enormous importance to Jaguar Land Rover.

As I said in my statement, we have recognised the scale of the challenges that the automotive sector faces worldwide. The hon. Lady makes a lot of criticisms, but I say to her that Volkswagen, which is letting 100,000 staff go, is not governed by a Labour Government. We have recognised the global headwinds. It is why we are putting into the automotive sector the biggest investment of the post-war period. Rather than criticising the industrial strategy, she should get in the car and travel that journey with us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee

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

The loss of 4,000 jobs at Jaguar Land Rover is a body blow for workers, families and communities across the west midlands, so I commend Richard Parker, the Mayor of the West Midlands, for moving quickly on Monday to put £500,000 on the table to help ensure that everybody gets back to work. Will the Minister pledge that if more is needed he will act to back the mayor in getting everybody back to work?

More broadly, will the Minister reiterate the pledges he made yesterday in front of the Select Committee to bring down costs—especially energy costs—and leave his mind open to the necessity of implementing tariffs on China, which is exporting cars that are over-subsidised? At the end of the day, everybody in the House believes in competition, but it needs to be fair competition.

[Blair McDougall]

I thank the Select Committee Chair for that series of questions. I know that for him this is not just a Committee interest but a local interest. I will take his points in reverse order.

As I said to my right hon. Friend yesterday in the Select Committee, we have to be very careful about Chinese imports. Our automotive industry is very export-focused, and the industry wants us to be very careful not to do anything in protecting our domestic manufacturers that might hurt them by closing down markets elsewhere. As I said to him yesterday, we are looking carefully at that, but we must be very careful.

On energy, we would love to go further than the British industrial competitiveness scheme. It is worth noting that when we initially introduced the proposal for BICS, it was for fewer businesses than will be eligible and will start to apply for it in a matter of days. We will continue to see how far we can go on that, because we are aware of how much of a problem there is for so many parts of industry.

Finally, we are working incredibly closely with the mayor. The main request from those involved in the situation at Jaguar Land Rover is that we continue to focus on the support we are giving to them in innovation, for the supply chain and in standing behind them, so that they come out strong and resilient on the other side of these global challenges.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

On the same day that the Chancellor stood up and claimed that his growth mission was working, it was reported that 4,000 more manufacturing jobs were being cut in the west midlands. This news will have been devastating for the thousands of workers and their families affected by the redundancies at Jaguar Land Rover as well as for the companies in the supply-chain industries that are affected. When Starmer’s Government announced that they would underwrite a rescue loan for JLR last year, the Liberal Democrats asked that the Prime Minister assure workers that the deal would be enough to protect their jobs; it was not. This development lays bare the fact that the Government’s growth mission is falling far short. We need to see bold action from the Chancellor on growing the economy across the UK.

Earlier this year, we called for the Government to review their tariffs on the steel sector due to the impact they would have on our manufacturing and defence industries, yet Ministers will not even negotiate a new growth and defence partnership with the EU that would unleash our auto industry by removing crippling rules-of-origin trade barriers. Is the Chancellor’s growth mission serious ambition or just words? What will the Government do to ensure that those highly specialised skills are not lost but fully utilised in our manufacturing sector?

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question. He knows that we are reviewing the ZEV mandate. The destination of electric remains, but the question of how quickly we go there is under review. He stands there as the supposed defender of Jaguar Land Rover, but I simply remind him that when we stepped in with £1.5 billion to protect Jaguar Land Rover, his party leader said:

“I predict Jaguar will now go bust. And you know what? They deserve to”.

The hon. Gentleman should apologise for that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Sureena Brackenridge.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) will allow the hon. Lady to ask her question undisturbed.

[Sureena Brackenridge]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have had reassurance that my constituents who work at the i54 Wolverhampton site will be largely unaffected. However, for those across the west midlands who are affected, this is deeply concerning, so I thank Mayor Richard Parker for the £500,000 support package. Will the Minister take heed of the concern expressed by JLR and the wider automotive sector about imports flooding the UK market, and act to ensure that the industry remains competitive and to safeguard future jobs?

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

Sunset for exercise of principal transfer powers

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

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

[Chris McDonald]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

I am grateful to their lordships for their work on the Bill. We support the amendments before the House.

Let me be plain from the outset: our objection has never been to steelmaking, or to the men and women who make steel; it is to a Government who have crashed around and used blunt instruments without ever having a detailed plan. Hope is not a strategy, and a blank cheque is not a plan. Nationalisation is a bad idea, and nothing that has yet been said at that Dispatch Box has told the House where the spending stops. The Government are taking us down a fast and expensive road with no idea where the exit lies. Even members of the Government concede in private that they rushed into something that they now repent at leisure.

Let us look at what we have learnt over the passage of the Bill. The Government and their Lib Dem little helpers in the Lords voted against a Conservative amendment in the name of the noble Lord Hunt to limit support to £2.5 billion over three years. That is almost £2.3 million every single day. The cap was not plucked from thin air—that £2.5 billion was the Government’s own figure. In their refusal to accept a cap, the Government concede that the figure is likely to be more. That could have been 35,000 new police officers, eight brand-new hospitals or more than double what the Chancellor raised over the course of this Parliament by destroying the livelihoods of British farmers.

Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on the tone of her speech, and I agree with her motion.

I could give a speech on dry, legalistic grounds, which in themselves are completely obvious, to show why we should have a trade ban with illegal settlements—because of the Geneva convention, or because of the fact that these settlements rely on international trade. The case is overwhelming, but I want to be more emotional.

I am a Conservative MP. I am not the sort of person who goes on marches, or who chants about a Palestine from the river to the sea. I am also realistic about the fact that Israel is surrounded by enemies. I am profoundly philosemitic, and profoundly immersed in Jewish culture—I read the Old Testament every day and that sort of thing. I have been to the site of the music festival; I have wept at the appalling pogrom against our Jewish brothers. So I am emotional, and I am entirely in favour of the right of Jewish people to defend themselves.

But this is so different. I have been to the west bank; I have seen what is going on there. This is profoundly wrong. People who have merely tilled their land for 2,000 years are being bullied and forced out. Even when we went there, we were confronted with armed settlers. This is outrageous. The whole House should cry out against it with one voice, and the Government should take action. That is why the motion is so important.

I am appealing to my Jewish friends, and to so many good, honest, reasonable people who detest what is going on at the moment. They are entirely in tune with Jewish culture, but unfortunately the Netanyahu Government are bound by right-wing extremists, and by people who care nothing about human rights and who have this weird and ridiculous notion that because 2,000 years ago that land was perhaps held by Jewish people—we are not even certain of that—they have a right to go in and force out people and destroy their lives. I appeal to moderate Jewish people: this must stop.

The Israeli Government could stop it tomorrow, couldn’t they? And if the whole world acted with one voice, I think we could put sufficient pressure on them. But just imagine, dear colleagues, if this stopped tomorrow. I will leave you with this thought: if there were no more illegal settlements, if no existing settlements were expanded, and if the Palestinian people were allowed to live in peace and freedom like everybody else, would not the skies lift? Would not Israeli people feel that they could live in peace? We cannot have endless war. Empires come to an end. The Israeli Government cannot just destroy the Palestinian people with the misguided notion that that will give them security. It will give them no security; there will be endless war, endless hatred. Let us in the House say that we believe profoundly in a unity of the human spirit. There should be no Muslim, no Jew, no Christian—we are one people, and we demand that the Palestinian people, like all other peoples on Earth, have a right to their own nation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The Father of the House got the timing bang on without my having to put a time limit on him, but I will now put a five-minute limit on speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. One of the other excuses we hear from the Government is that settlement goods do not benefit from the preferential trade agreement that we have with Israel. That implies that it is already possible to distinguish between settlement goods and non-settlement goods, under existing provisions that we should be enforcing. Fundamentally, as has been pointed out, the shoe should be on the other foot. If Israeli exporters cannot prove that their exports do not come from illegal settlements, they should not be able to export to us. We should be absolutely certain. We must make it clear that it is unacceptable for British money to be at any risk of supporting the continuation of these illegal settlements. There is no excuse.

We do not have the excuse that we have to wait for other countries to move, because they have moved ahead of us; and we do not have the excuse that this is too technically difficult, because the legal framework already exists, so what are the Government waiting for? Why will they not take this step? Will the Minister recognise the absolute imperative on the UK to take this step now, or will we hear yet more excuses from him when he sums up?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I will have no choice but to reduce the time limit to four minutes after the next speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I will implement a three-minute time limit after the next speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

One year ago this month, Awdah Hathaleen, a resident of Umm al-Khair, who was a consultant on Oscar-winning documentary “No Other Land” and who I and others in this House met during his visit to Parliament in 2024, was murdered by the settler Yinon Levi. Awdah is desperately missed by his community in the village of Umm al-Khair, who are under severe threat of settler attacks and from the Israeli miliary. Only this week, it has been reported that over 30 armed settlers under military protection rampaged through Umm al-Khair to attack Palestinians.

I raise this case to point out how weak the UK’s west bank policy is in practice. Yinon Levi runs an earthworks and construction company that enables the construction of new illegal settlement outposts and uses its heavy machinery to destroy Palestinian infrastructure, including pipes and powerlines. Even though Levi is sanctioned, it is entirely legal for UK firms to do business with him and to sell his firm diggers or spare parts, concrete for new outposts or anything else. The limits of these sanctions are simply a travel ban and an asset freeze—weak.

The point is that this designation means nothing in practice if trade sanctions are not brought in to stymie support for illegal settlements. As hon. Members have said, these “complexities” are not fit to hide behind. When we see the action quite rightly taken on Russia and we see that many countries have already made a commitment to banning settlement trade, complexity comes across as a lazy excuse. The UK is being left behind internationally on this front and the Government appear to be farcically weak to the public, their MPs, the Palestinian people and even the Israeli Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

We now come to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last Friday, a number of Conservative MPs visited my constituency. That is entirely understandable, as we have fantastic event spaces and hospitality. Most of those Conservative MPs notified me in advance that they would be attending, with one notable exception: the Leader of the Opposition. Surely we should expect the Leader of the Opposition to set the standards, adhere to them, and make sure that we all know about the leadership that she wants to instil. Can you advise me on how we can make sure that those in positions of leadership meet the expectations and demonstrate the standards that we all agree to in this place?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order, and for informing the right hon. Member to whom he has referred. The document entitled “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” deals with this matter. When a Member visits another Member’s constituency, except on a purely private visit, they should take reasonable steps in advance to tell the Member in whose constituency the visit is taking place. The guidance states that a

“failure to do so is rightly regarded by colleagues as very discourteous.”

A party political activity is not a purely private visit, and I hope that by stating this very clearly from the Chair, it will reduce the frequency of such discourtesies in future.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, constituents from Newcastle-under-Lyme visited this mother of all Parliaments. We went down to the Terrace, where I was informed that the ever-charming and hospitable Richard Pengelly, the long-term linchpin of Strangers, will be retiring next Thursday after almost 40 years of service to this House and to Members of all parties, from all four nations of our United Kingdom of varying degrees and lengths of service. I know that you think very fondly of Richard, as do I and colleagues on both sides of the House. As we give thanks for Richard’s decades of service to Parliament, can you advise me on the best way for this House to place on the record our collective thanks to Richard Pengelly? What secrets he must have!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Let us not dwell on the secrets of the barmen. However, he will know that this is not a matter for the Chair, even though this occupant of the Chair might have a keen interest. I am sure we all wish Richard well for his retirement.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

Summer Jobs

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Douglas Lumsden]

Lessons must definitely be learnt from what has happened in Scotland, because we are seeing a big impact.

Why would someone start a business in Aberdeen now? New businesses have to factor in rent, business rates, insurance, energy costs and waste charges, and that is before they even get to national insurance or staff costs. There is a huge cost to doing business, and it is no wonder that our high streets are struggling. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) made an important point about business owners, because often they decide not to take a salary, or to take very little. We have heard about zero-hours contracts, but that does not apply to them, and neither does the minimum wage. Often they are going without in order to pay all their costs.

We have organisations that are trying to make a difference. Our Union Street in Aberdeen, for example, does a great job of providing businesses with incentives and provides start-up grants for new businesses, but it is a private organisation. It should be the council, city council and Governments that are doing more to help industry.

Summer jobs are critical for the hospitality sector. I think of the beachfront in my constituency, where we are fortunate to have two whole days of summer every year. It is so important that those businesses have the flexibility to employ part-time, seasonal workers. Across the city there are so many great businesses that benefit from seasonal workers. I think about Codona’s, a funfair at the beach, which employs hundreds of people, but it is most busy during the summer period. That is also the case for cafés in places such as Duthie park, bustling when the weather is good. They need that flexibility. Recently we have been fortunate to have a huge expansion at Aberdeen harbour, under the stellar leadership of Bob Sanguinetti. That means that cruise ships can now visit Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. That is a tremendous asset, but it is seasonal and we need to ensure that our hospitality sector is resourced to cope with the demand.

We need to support our hospitality sector, but the SNP and Labour Governments have been woeful at doing that. We have seen job taxes, business rates, bureaucracy and red tape, and all that is hindering our industry, harming our jobs, causing businesses to fail and impacting young people the most. The Government need to think again, allow our hospitality industry to thrive and support our motion today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

Of course he does. It is in the Labour party manifesto. He has spoken about backing our industrial strategy, and this is an incredibly important part of it.

The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) spoke about how beautiful his constituency was. [Interruption.] Yes, I know—I am looking at him. Later this month I shall be on my way to a holiday in Cornwall, and perhaps I will stop off in his constituency with my family. So many Opposition Members spoke of our imposing a tourism tax on local areas, but there will be no such imposition. This is devolution, allowing local areas to decide whether they want to invest in that or not.

I can confirm that we will not move our amendment, but this Government are proud to be taking employment law into the 21st century, proud that we are rebalancing business rates for smaller businesses to help young people get jobs, and proud that we are backing our high streets. We have commissioned Alan Milburn to investigate the high level of youth unemployment, and we look forward to the publication of his final report in the autumn. The report will be backed by evidence and the real experiences of young people in a changing labour market. What it will not be based on is outdated, Dickensian ideas of getting 13-year-olds working late into the night before school. This Labour Government will act, and these reforms will deliver the national renewal that our country needs.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I put the Question, let me say that it is a shame that those at the Burnley summer school have left. The Minister will want to be careful about using the word “hypocrisy” in the Chamber.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House regrets the combination of the rise in employers’ National Insurance contributions, the impact of the Employment Rights Act 2025, and the regulations that make it more difficult for young people to get their first job; further regrets the destructive impact that the Government’s policies have had on entry-level, flexible and seasonal work in particular; also regrets the Government’s plans to give Mayors powers to introduce an overnight visitor levy, making staycations in England less attractive and less affordable, while risking jobs in the tourism and hospitality industries that depend on domestic visitors; calls on the Government to change course to support summer jobs, flexible working and seasonal work, on which the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors depend; and further calls on the Government to abolish business rates for high street businesses, to boost the economy and save summer jobs.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for securing today’s important debate. I want to use the brief time I have to share two examples from my constituency of systemic mismanagement of managed property.

The first example that I will cite is a FirstPort-managed property—we have heard that name mentioned already—called Bentley Court in Camberley’s town centre. On 19 March, the building’s only lift broke down. For most of us, that would be a frustration, but for the retirement community who live in that building, it has been life changing. These are older people, often with significant mobility issues. That lift is not just a convenience; it is their access point to and from their property. It is their independence. Residents tell me that they have not been able to go shopping and have missed hospital appointments. Some cannot take out their rubbish, and others have become trapped in their home for days at a time.

That brings me to the case of Audrey West, one of my constituents. She lived at Bentley Court for more than 26 years. She suffered from heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic bronchitis, and had serious mobility problems. She became a prisoner in her own home when that lift broke down, and her health and wellbeing deteriorated. When she attempted to tackle the stairs, the physical exertion caused enormous strain on her body, leaving her breathless and exhausted. That was only compounded by the recent heatwave. In order to secure her safety, her family concluded that the only thing they could do was remove her from her home of 26 years. On 28 June, just days after leaving her home, Audrey’s family contacted FirstPort again, copying in my office, to inform the company and me that Audrey had died. I am not here to claim that a broken lift directly caused Audrey’s death, but I am willing to say this: no vulnerable resident should ever be left feeling abandoned and trapped in their home. The lift remains unrepaired and unrepairable, with no end to the situation in sight.

My second example is Mytchett Heath, a not-for-profit retirement community managed by Cognatum Estates. MPs from across the House have constituents who are affected. Again, older residents are feeling completely ignored, and now maligned, by the company that should be looking after them—residents who have invested their life savings in a home, but who have no voice when it comes to how their property is managed. Last month, I met a group of Cognatum residents here in Parliament. One described Cognatum as

“the worst commercial organisation I have dealt with in a long professional career”,

and nobody in the room looked surprised at that.

Residents described soaring service charges, complaints that went nowhere, a regulator—the Association of Retirement Housing Managers—that they do not believe is independent, and a tribunal process that is so expensive. Lease terms can allow the managing company to recover legal costs from residents, who simply give up trying to engage with the process. Residents spoke about residents’ forums disappearing, and about having to renegotiate electricity contracts on behalf of the management company, because it was incapable of doing so itself. The most extraordinary thing that we heard was that Cognatum has refused to allow defibrillators in a retirement community, because it is fearful that members of the public might seek to access those defibrillators from outside the estate.

I will conclude in just a few seconds, if you will allow me that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask the Minister—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. There is a very strict time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

For 28 of the 29 years that I have been in Parliament, I have campaigned for leasehold reform. I was instrumental in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and on the Bill Committee during the passage of the 2024 Act. I welcome the Select Committee’s report and pay tribute to the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for her remarks.

There are 11,000 individual leaseholders in contact with my office. I pay tribute to Jackie George, who is in daily contact with hundreds of them; she is my office manager, and most of what she does with leaseholders is actually in her spare time.

Leasehold reform is about control. It is about passing power and control from the moneyed interests to the people whose homes they affect. To do that, we must enact the remaining Law Commission recommendations on enfranchisement and the right to manage. For enfranchisement, that means restricting development value. It was promised to Parliament by the last Government in 2021 and it was meant to be in the 2024 Act. It is just wrong that leaseholders can be held to ransom by hypothetical development value, with developers claiming that they could build in the garden or on top of the building and demanding huge extra sums to stop leaseholders from affording the freehold purchase. Nicola Muir, a barrister at Tanfield Chambers, has wryly observed

“it is amazing what development landlords believe is possible and the profits they claim they will generate”.

She cited one instance where the landlord initially claimed £34 million for the alleged potential to build a skyscraper in the front garden of a block.

Today, the right to manage is a shadow of what the Labour Government legislated for in the 2002 Act. Freeholders can punish leaseholders who have taken back control of their blocks with the right to manage because of the Supreme Court decision in 2022—the Settlers Court decision—which went against the intention of Parliament by allowing freeholders to retain control of estate charges. We need to revert to the pre Settlers Court position; the Law Commission’s remaining right-to-manage recommendations would help to achieve that.

An entire legal industry has emerged in torpedoing right-to-manage claims for freeholders, where tiny procedural details can see leaseholders spending literally a fortune to defend their right to manage in tribunal and the courts, only to lose the claim. The tribunal has no power to waive errors made over the procedural traps, yet the reforms to change this—the remaining Law Commission right-to-manage recommendations that would end frivolous lawfare of freeholders and make right to manage a universal scheme—have been omitted from the Bill, despite previous promises.

I am conscious that the scale of the leasehold crisis has become much worse since the Law Commission issued its final report six years ago. There are quick-win policies that could still be added to the Bill, such as reducing the arbitrary 50% trigger for right-to-manage claims—as many hon. Members have already said—to 30% or 35%. Just imagine if we had a law that that said a bad Government could be removed only if 50% of all citizens with the franchise, and not just those who actually voted in an election, had to support the proposition. That is the situation with leasehold. If the right to manage is a no fault right—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

From the moment I was elected in Hartlepool, my inbox, surgeries and public meetings were filled with people telling me remarkably similar and shocking stories about their estate management companies. That is what I wish to focus my remarks on. The tales are very similar: terrible communication, risible explanations and no accountability, but ever-rising bills. Ahead of this debate, I asked constituents to send me examples, and I was overwhelmed by the sheer number that I received, so I obviously cannot go through them all today. The stories came from Marine Point, the Longbranch estate, Wynyard Mews, St Mary’s Court and other estates across the town.

One constituent, Andrew, highlighted the fundamental unfairness between estates adopted by the council and those left in private management: people can live just streets apart, pay the same council tax, and yet receive completely different levels of service. Derek asked me a simple question: why should he pay both Hartlepool borough council and Sela Management, when the council cannot carry out the work, because it has not adopted the estate, and the management company also appears unwilling to carry it out?

It is an entirely fair question.

Ray and Janice wish to put their property, which they own outright, into a living trust, yet they were delayed from doing so because Sela Management must first consent. They describe this as “medieval behaviour”. Jordan told me he was threatened over alleged unpaid invoices that he never received. The first meaningful communication was not an explanation; it was a demand. That is no way to treat people. When Helena bought her Longbranch home, she was told that as more families moved on to the estate, the costs would fall, because they would be shared more widely. The number of households has more than doubled. Her charges have not fallen; they have risen by more than £200.

Kim described waiting months for basic repairs, only for residents to feel that the work that was eventually carried out was of poor quality. Others have shown me photographs of unfinished drains, damaged kerbs and maintenance left incomplete. These are not legal technicalities; they are the everyday experiences of ordinary families—people paying real money for work that they cannot see, cannot verify and simply do not believe has been carried out properly.

My constituent Christine, whose property is managed by Kingston, told me that residents were collectively charged around £24,000 to repaint a block of flats on the headland. Within three months, the paint was already peeling. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Because of a fire evacuation of the Palace, the Serjeant on duty is requesting a suspension of the sitting. I have been advised by the Serjeant at Arms that the Chamber and Gallery should be evacuated, using the nearest available exits. Please proceed in an orderly manner and follow the directions of Doorkeepers or security staff.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call Jonathan Brash to conclude his speech, the remaining Members will have a time limit of three minutes.

I call Jonathan Brash.

[Mr Brash]

As I was saying, I welcome the Government’s commitment to leasehold reform, but Ministers must ensure that estate management companies are not treated as an afterthought. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 provides important powers that have not yet been brought into force, so I urge Ministers to do that. Estates do need to be managed, but we should go back to how they were managed: by local authorities. That is the way to truly fix the system: ensure that every estate is adopted by every council and drive these estate management companies into the dust where they belong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman might heed the fact that Members are on a very tight time limit, and he has not been present for any of the debate until this point.

[Yuan Yang]

One resident, June, said:

“I’m afraid that all the years of bullying, alternating with being ignored by FirstPort on all levels, have finally taken their toll on my mental health”.

It is time for better regulation.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

Even before coming to this place, as a local councillor I dealt with so many issues relating to leasehold property management and unadopted estates.

A notable example is the Doulton Brook estate in my constituency, a mixed freehold and leasehold estate with houses and apartments built just over a decade ago by Taylor Wimpey and managed by Trinity Estates. Residents have been dogged by issues from day one, with a lack of transparency around estate management charges and decision making, inheriting responsibility for communal land and infrastructure, and an associated public open space linked to the estate with no clear management and future transfer plan. I pay tribute to Alan Watts, the lead resident of the Doulton Brook action group, and all the residents who have worked closely with me to hold the developer and the managing agent to account and unpick the multitude of issues that exist on a mixed estate like that. I worked with the residents, the council, the managing agent and the developer to get the estate up to an adoptable standard. That was not a quick process, with pushback every step of the way. Developers should not be allowed to leave estates in an unadoptable condition, especially not to use it to generate more money from residents. I hope the Minister will look at how we can facilitate retrospective action for existing estates suffering with the fleecehold system, as well as new ones.

I am part of the Labour for leaseholders group of MPs, and we challenged Trinity Estates’ CEO directly on poor practices. It was clear there was a total lack of oversight from head office as to what happens on the ground. They promised they would do better, but Alan and the other Doulton Brook residents have seen nothing change.

I also want to raise concerns about the use of leasehold in retirement apartments such as Webb Court in Stourbridge, managed by FirstPort. Residents seeking to enjoy their retirement are left stressed and frustrated by poor communication and lack of accountability, with an agent who seems to see the residents as a hindrance rather than customers to serve. Recently, FirstPort took the decision to upgrade the alarm call system—not a problem, but the way it was done meant that elderly residents faced a sudden demand of a lump sum of £1,100, to be paid immediately. Following my intervention, that magically reduced to £300, and we negotiated a payment plan, but this was despite nearly £100,000 sitting in the reserve fund.

I have provided support with issues in other retirement complexes with other managing agents, such as lifts left unfixed, as we have heard today, and residents harassed for payments that they have already made. I hope the Minister will consider the impact on our older generation in such situations, so that they are treated with the respect and dignity they deserve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

That brings us to the Front Benchers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Steel Tariffs: Northern Ireland

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I have regularly and repeatedly met industry downstream and producers—I did so again yesterday—as has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), the Minister for Industry, who is sitting by my side. We have striven at every point to ensure that where possible we are including only those categories of steel that are manufactured in the UK. One of the reasons we changed the quotas in what we announced last week from the original suggestions made in March was that Speciality Steel is not up and running and therefore it is not able to supply some of the categories that my hon. Friend spoke about. In many areas, the quota is larger than existing trade levels. Yesterday afternoon, a variety of MPs came to meet me and officials to talk this through, and I am happy for my hon. Friend to meet my officials if he has specific concerns for constituency businesses.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Businesses across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom are concerned that from tomorrow they may face tariffs on the steel that they are importing even if that steel is not manufactured in the United Kingdom in the quantities or grades they need. The Under-Secretary has requested that we write to him with specific examples, and I did so on 19 June on behalf of Hewland Engineering in my constituency, but it is concerned that it has not heard back yet and 1 July is coming quickly.

The Minister mentioned in his response to the urgent question that he was working hard to ensure a single market in this area between us and the European Union. The Liberal Democrats are really grateful to hear that, because we have long argued that this friction is an inevitable result of our leaving the European Union and the single market. Will he help support the Liberal Democrats’ campaign to ditch the Government’s red lines and have a new, bespoke UK-EU customs union, along with joining the single market for our new growth and defence partnership with the EU, to help protect British companies and help get Britain growing again?

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jamie Stone]

The hon. Member speaks with passion and cares about her constituents. It seems that what she is saying is in parallel with my earlier intervention about the risk of losing the skills of working with steel—welding and suchlike. Does she share my disappointment, but perhaps not surprise, that there is no member of the Scottish National party with us today? We know that the Scottish Government set their face against all new nuclear in Scotland, but we would welcome an SMR at Dounreay in Caithness.

The hon. Member might agree that the Scottish Government are not helpful on defence either. She talks about leadership and shouldering the responsibility, but we have a gap—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Mr Stone, we are here to debate the steel industry, not new nuclear or the pros and cons of the Scottish Government. Perhaps it is better if we stay within the confines of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

Yes, I will take two interventions.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

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

[Chris McDonald]

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

[Paul Waugh]

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

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

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

[Chris McDonald]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Bill, not amended in the Committee, considered.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before we proceed to the next business, I have a short statement to make. I have received a report from the Tellers in the No Lobby on the Division that took place in Committee of the whole House at 8.27 pm yesterday on new clause 2 to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill. The hon. Members for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) have informed me that the number of no votes was erroneously reported as 257, rather than 251. I will direct the Clerk to correct the numbers in the Journal accordingly. The ayes were 65 and the noes were 251.

—[Official Report, 8 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 111.]

Third Reading

[The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Government believe in Britain’s steel future. This Bill will help to transform that belief into a reality. It will ensure that the long-term vision for our UK steel sector is realised, helping to restore domestic production to sustainable levels and to support this Government’s economic growth plans. This Bill provides powers for the Government to bring steel companies into public ownership, subject to the public interest test being met.

In many ways, the progress of this Bill has shown the House at its very best, with passion, insight and determination to take action in the national interest. We had an excellent and wide-ranging debate, with Members from all parts of the House recognising the importance of passing this legislation. Let me begin by thanking Members for their time and their thoughts. I express my gratitude to those who have contributed to the passage of this Bill so far, especially those who have taken a particular interest in ensuring that we get the details of this vital piece of legislation right.

I also take a moment to recognise those working in and supporting our steelmaking communities. Every day, they make a vital contribution to our country’s economic security. During the passage of this Bill, we have heard much about the specific situation at British Steel Ltd, and in particular about its current ownership status.

Let me be frank with the House: our decision to proceed with this Bill—to take these powers now—has absolutely nothing to do with the national origin of the current owners, Jingye. We have always been and remain country-agnostic about the current ownership. We simply believe that the British public interest should be paramount in determinations about future ownership. We continue to welcome international investment into the UK, including from China. We remain committed to our legal and international obligations to overseas business and foreign investors. We are fully compliant with our treaty undertakings to protect overseas investors and businesses operating in the United Kingdom.

While this Government need to take steps to secure UK Steel’s capability, we are committed to doing so in a manner that respects the rights of businesses. When and where the Government exercise the transfer powers in the Bill, an independent valuer will be appointed to determine what compensation, if any, is payable. The Bill requires a clear public interest test and provides for a compensation scheme where that might be relevant. The Government fully respect the rights of businesses and investors subject to this Bill. We will continue at all times to act fairly, regardless of the nationality or background of those businesses.

I place on record my thanks to parliamentary counsel and officials in my Department for their hard work on drafting and guiding the passage of this Bill. I also thank the Clerks, the Doorkeepers, Hansard and all of the House and its authorities for making the passage of this legislation possible. Let me also, on a personal note, pay tribute to the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald). A lifetime of dedication to the steel sector has brought valuable insight, passion and creative parliamentarian work to the Bill, which has enriched the debate in this place.

The House has sent a clear message about the importance of decisive action to safeguard the future of the steel industry. Since I became Secretary of State, I have championed an activist, interventionist industrial policy—activist, because the years of standing back and watching British industry decline are over; interventionist, because we, like other Governments around the world both right and left, from the United States to France and Germany, step in to invest, modernise and protect our industries. Our policy is both activist and interventionist, because purpose without action is merely rhetoric, and acting without purpose is performative, not strategic. The Bill is action with a purpose, and the purpose is clear: to invest in, modernise and protect Britain’s steel.

I am encouraged to witness the strength of support in the Chamber for this activist, interventionist Bill. As it moves to the other place, let me reiterate my commitment to continued engagement with parliamentarians as it completes its passage and we ensure that the Government’s vision for Britain’s steel sector becomes a reality. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

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

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 21, page 1, line 6, leave out “of or including” and insert “predominantly of”.

This amendment would narrow the definition of a steel undertaking so that it had to be a business consisting predominantly of the manufacture or processing of steel, or iron for the purposes or in connection with the manufacture of steel.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out

“includes (but is not limited to)”

and insert “means”.

This amendment would limit the public interest test to the areas set out in subsections (a) to (c).

Amendment 23, page 1, line 20, at end insert—

“(d) preventing the closure of, or the loss of jobs at, a steel undertaking in Wales.”

This amendment includes the public interest in preventing the loss of jobs in Wales and the prevention of the closure of a steel undertaking in Wales in the meaning of public interest for the purposes of the Act.

Amendment 1, page 2, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may not exercise a principal transfer power unless they have laid a statement before both Houses of Parliament explaining their reasons for concluding that it is necessary to exercise the power in the public interest.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a statement before Parliament explaining their reasons for concluding that it is necessary to exercise a principal transfer power in the national interest, before exercising that power.

Amendment 15, page 2, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may not exercise a principal transfer power unless he has commissioned an independent assessment of whether the exercise of the power is in the public interest, and that assessment has demonstrated that it is in the public interest.

(2B) The Secretary of State may appoint such independent person as he thinks fit to carry out an independent assessment under subsection (2A) above, and may pay remuneration and allowances to that person.”

This amendment would require an independent assessment of whether the public interest test had been met before the Secretary of State could exercise the principal transfer powers.

Amendment 16, page 2, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) The exercise of a principal transfer power may only be considered to be in the public interest under subsection (1) if the Secretary of State has is satisfied that the exercise of the power would provide value for money for the taxpayer.”

This amendment would require the NAO to have concluded that the exercise of the principal transfer power was good value for money before the Secretary of State could consider it to be in the public interest.

Amendment 17, page 2, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may not exercise a principal transfer power under subsection (1) unless they have laid a report before Parliament containing full details of the criteria used to assess whether the exercise of power would be in the public interest.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish full details of the criteria used to assess the public interest test before exercising the principal transfer power.

Clause 2 stand part.

Amendment 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 10, leave out subsections (3) to (5).

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State extending the sunset of the principal transfer powers.

Clause 3 stand part.

Amendment 2, in clause 4, page 2, line 30, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

This amendment changes the procedure for share transfer regulations from the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure.

Clauses 4 to 14 stand part.

Amendment 3, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

This amendment changes the procedure for property transfer regulations from the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure.

Clauses 15 to 38 stand part.

Amendment 18, in clause 39, page 25, line 32, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

This amendment would require regulations relating to continuity obligations to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Clauses 39 to 44 stand part.

Amendment 19, in clause 45, page 28, line 37, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

This amendment would require regulations related to enforcement to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Clauses 45 to 51 stand part.

New clause 2—Stakeholder Advisory Committee—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a Stakeholder Advisory Committee to provide advice on the exercise of principal transfer powers under this Act (“the Committee”).

(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that the membership of the Committee includes representation from stakeholders, including but not limited to—

(a) industries that rely on the supply of steel, including the defence sector and critical national infrastructure,

(b) representatives of the workforce of the steel undertaking, and

(c) local authorities for the areas in which the steel undertaking operates.

(3) The Secretary of State must consult, and have regard to the advice of, the Committee before making a determination that the exercise of a principal transfer power is necessary in the public interest under section 2.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a stakeholder advisory committee. The Secretary of State would be required to seek the committee's advice before making a determination that the exercise of a principal transfer power under the Act was in the public interest.

New clause 3—Jobs and industrial transition strategy—

“(1) Where the Secretary of State has exercised a principal transfer power in respect of a steel undertaking, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a jobs and industrial transition strategy.

(2) A strategy under subsection (1) must explicitly set out how the Government's investment and transition plans for the specified steel undertaking will—

(a) protect skilled employment,

(b) provide and support reskilling and redeployment opportunities for the workforce, and

(c) deliver tangible economic renewal and support economic resilience in the local communities dependent on the steel undertaking.

(3) The strategy must be laid before Parliament within six months of the day on which the regulations exercising the principal transfer power take effect.”

This new clause requires that the Secretary of State publishes a report on jobs and industrial transition strategy where it exercises a principal transfer power.

New clause 5—Duty to report: 10-year strategy for nationalised steel undertakings—

“(1) Within three months of exercising a principal transfer power in relation to a steel undertaking under this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report containing a 10-year strategy for the steel undertaking.

(2) Any report published under subsection (1) must include—

(a) a strategy for the operation of any blast furnaces which form part of the steel undertaking,

(b) an investment plan for the steel undertaking,

(c) a vision for the future of the site of the steel undertaking, and

(d) consideration of the need for a steel procurement strategy which prioritises British steel to support the steel undertaking,

for the following 10 years.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a 10-year strategy for any steel undertaking nationalised under this Act.

New clause 8—Contingent liabilities—

“(1) The Secretary of State may not exercise a principal transfer power in relation to a steel undertaking unless they have made a statement to Parliament on the value of contingent liabilities associated with the use of the power.

(2) The statement made under subsection (1) must include—

(a) the value of any contingent liabilities to be acquired; and,

(b) the steps the Secretary of State will take to seek to minimise taxpayer exposure to any contingent liabilities so acquired.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament on contingent liabilities acquired before they exercise a principal transfer power under this Act.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

If I may, I would also like to speak to the other amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends, and, before I do that, approach the Bill with the serious concern it deserves. Today’s amendments reflect some of the points the Opposition made on Second Reading: that the Bill is a chaotic, unplanned intervention that risks landing taxpayers with an open-ended and potentially unlimited bill. Without addressing those issues as we make this legislation, we need to really focus on the things that are currently making the domestic production of steel unprofitable, such as higher employment costs and policies in pursuit of net zero, such as carbon taxes and associated regulations and levies.

Before I turn to the amendments in detail, I put on record how much I respect the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), and his real-life expertise in the steel business. He is truly a rare example on the Government Benches of someone who has deep private-sector experience and really knows his subject—I salute that. My own private-sector expertise is as an investor, so most of the amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends are trying to protect the taxpayer from some of the financial risks the Bill lands them with.

The fact is that nobody wanted to nationalise British Steel. The Government told us last year, when they brought in emergency legislation—and brought Members back on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands war—that they did not want to nationalise British Steel. They may now claim to their Back Benchers and union backers that this is something to celebrate as true socialism, but the reality is that it is an outcome that the Government wanted to avoid.

The Government failed to negotiate a good outcome with the Chinese owners of British Steel. The Prime Minister and the Business Secretary went all the way to China and failed to get a deal. Whenever this Government negotiate, the taxpayer loses out. The Conservatives do not think that the Government should nationalise British Steel, because we do not think politicians should be running businesses. Since the Government intervened last year, it has cost taxpayers over £1.3 million every day.

The Bill is deeply flawed, and it is in a spirit of goodwill that I offer the Government the chance to adopt the Opposition’s amendments. I am sure that they will want to agree to them, as they are all sensible.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the Minister, I will set the record straight: sadly, it is just plain old Ms Nokes in Committee of the whole House.

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

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), for her incredibly generous remarks at the start of the debate. I think we all try our best here with whatever expertise we have; of course, I recognise her expertise in finance, and will aim to address some of the serious issues she raised.

At the heart of the Bill and this debate is the future of our steel industry. The difference in opinion between the Government and the Opposition over the use of nationalisation as a tool of industrial strategy may be irreconcilable, but it is a useful tool—although not one to be used lightly. It is important that it is used in situations of market failure or some other private sector issue, which is certainly the case today. It was also the case when the previous Conservative Government briefly nationalised one of our steel companies, before that led to a failed private sector ownership.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Liam Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point that I am about to come on to. My point, I suppose, is that there is a case for this Bill. I think it is actually quite important, and the powers that it confers are also important, but if we are to get value for money from it, there have to be five other components, which I will come on to now.

The second area is lower energy costs. The British industrial competitiveness scheme is welcome, but it does not come online until 2027. Steelmakers, like much of our manufacturing industry, are saying very clearly to the Business and Trade Committee that there is a widening gap between UK wholesale electricity prices and the prices of our peers in the wake of the Iran crisis. My question to the Minister is: what further targeted support will be available to energy-intensive industries before 2027? As the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) rightly points out, that is an essential component of the package.

The third area that the shadow Minister was right to highlight is the issue of tariffs. This is now an urgent issue. The Committee heard evidence this afternoon at our own roundtable about the need to refine the tariff structures that have been put in place. The key thing is that we get a better deal with the European Union, to which we export 80% of our steel. It is about to cut tariff-free quotas by 47%, double tariffs from 25% to 50%, and impose melt and pour requirements. Unless we can get a deal in place with the European Union before the end of July, I am afraid that many of the good intentions behind this Bill will be confounded.

The fourth area is procurement. We must ensure that there is a proper demand curve from the UK state for the things that British Steel makes. In the British economy, British state procurement makes up £1 in every £6. Right now, despite the excellent changes in the Procurement Act 2023, we do not have a sufficiently clear forward pipeline. That has to change, not least because when we talk to defence companies—which are, of course, patiently awaiting the defence investment plan—and defence contractors, they still tell us that the kind of steel that they need to make the things that keep this country safe are not made in this country. Ensuring that there are advanced market commitments alongside the defence equipment plan, along with the range of other big, long-term ambitions that I know the Secretary of State has, is very important.

The penultimate area I want to touch on is scrap supply. The Secretary of State has ultimately come to the conclusion—wisely, I suspect—that we should shift to electric arc furnaces, but that kind of industry model will work only if there is a healthy supply of scrap. I think that Ministers are being just a tiny bit too complacent about whether we have the plans in place to source all that scrap. I know that there is a roundtable proposed for later this month, but as part and parcel of ensuring that the steel strategy actually works, can we have, at the very least, a read-out for Parliament about what scrap supplies will be kept in our country, rather than exported?

The final point I wanted to flag is about consolidation. One of the virtues of this Bill is that it bestows on the Secretary of State the power to ensure that there is consolidation in the UK steel industry for the future needs of the economy. In particular, it should allow us to take assets that have gone to firms that are currently out of business, and to rationalise the industry in a way that makes sense. I would like to hear more about what the Secretary of State is proposing when it comes to consolidating the industry.

Ultimately, in the world that we are in, when there are so many visible hands in the global economy interfering with the free market in steel, we will have to have a stronger visible hand. That is what the Secretary of State is proposing through this Bill. There will be a lot more work to do in the Bill’s subsequent stages to satisfy the House that he has got right the statecraft package behind this measure of statism. I look forward to hearing some reassuring noises on that point when the Minister winds up.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With a five-minute time limit, I call Jessica Morden.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I am setting a three-minute time limit, which will allow most Members to get in, but not all.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Chadwick]

There are at least 6,000 vacancies for welders, so we absolutely need a lot more of them.

The skills shortages present opportunities to get future generations into well-paid and secure trades. Artificial intelligence cannot do welding yet, because it does not 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 is part of our sovereign capability and part of British power. That is why steel matters.

As has been mentioned, the steel industry 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 today the Conservatives seem to be saying that they do not think the Government should do anything about it. Just yesterday they were complaining about our lack of defence readiness. Well, what do they think tanks and ships are made from?

Today, this Government ask Parliament to move heaven and earth to save steel in Scunthorpe. It is right to act—of course the Government should have the 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 its shoulders. That was despite Welsh Labour MPs and candidates, in the months prior to the general election, lining up in front of giant election posters that read, “Save our steel.” They said they had a £2.5 billion fund to spend on steel. Given that the Government have 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 nothing could be done. People in my constituency have lost their jobs because of this. When 2,800 jobs were wiped out in Port Talbot, there was no emergency Saturday sitting, no recall of Parliament, no emergency legislation and no sudden declaration that steel was a vital national—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I call Melanie Onn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.

Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I agree with my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) that there seems to be a complete lack of understanding from those on the Government Benches of the absolute disaster they are presiding over when it comes to the economy and, most importantly, growth. The evidence is hard to ignore. The hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) talked about a battle of ideas—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind Members that if they have intervened in a debate, they might like to have the courtesy to wait a while before departing the Chamber.

[Gregory Stafford]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Exeter talked about a battle of ideas, but those on the Government Benches seem to be totally devoid of any ideas that will actually get this country moving again. The ITEM Club forecasts around 160,000 job losses this year alone, with manufacturing, retail and construction expected to be hit the hardest. Unemployment has risen month after month and now stands at 5.2%. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs payroll data shows 110,000 fewer people in employment than when Labour took office.

In my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, in Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, there has been a 28% increase in the number of young people claiming unemployment-related benefits in a single year. This is the reality behind the rhetoric that comes from the Government: young people unable to get a foothold in work, businesses pausing recruitment, families feeling the squeeze in their bills, and high streets losing momentum.

The reason is not difficult to identify, and businesses across the country are telling us the same thing: Labour has increased the cost of employment, raised taxes and layered on regulation that is undermining confidence. The Employment Rights Act alone introduced more than 330 pages of additional obligations on employers. The Government’s own assessment acknowledged a cost of around £1 billion a year. Both the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors warned that the legislation would reduce hiring and investment, which is exactly what we are seeing. What is the Government’s response? A regulating for growth Bill. It is like asking a vegetarian how they would like their steak cooked. The reality is that this is not the way to get growth.

At a recent hospitality roundtable in my constituency, one publican told me that there is now “no incentive to hire someone under 25”. That should concern every single Member of this House, but Labour Members simply parrot the Government’s talking points. They are totally detached from what is going on in the real world. The unemployment rate is now close to one in six among 16 to 24-year-olds, and I cannot believe that Labour Members are not being told this by their constituents. For many young people, their first job is the foundation for everything that follows—skills, confidence, independence and ambition—but too many are now finding the door closed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Coleman]

I am most grateful for that intervention, but it does not in any way even attempt to address the point I was making about the loss of money to this country through trade and the fact that so many businesses have gone under.

On state aid and product procurement, I will accept that one of the most unpalatable things that civil servants have always said, along with “commercial in confidence”, is, “No, we can’t do that because of EU procurement rules.” After the changes to EU procurement rules there was, even while we were in the European Union, a huge amount that you could do to prefer small and local firms, as I knew when I was deputy leader of my local council and got officials to do that. The civil servants you were dealing with perhaps should have looked again—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. We have been here for two years; you have to stop using “you” and “your”, because it refers to me. It was not me who was dealing with civil servants.

[Ben Coleman]

I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. Such officials as gave that information could have looked again.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I will make a slightly different point, which is that there are huge opportunities for good growth in this country. Speaking as someone who has had a 16-year career backing the industries of tomorrow, whether it is in fusion, SMR nuclear technologies, agritech, bioscience, the bioeconomy on Teesside, or the satellite economy in Glasgow, we have an opportunity to turn these into the industries of tomorrow. I welcome the Government’s industrial strategy commitment to do it, but it is at 50,000 feet; we need to drop down to some more tangible and bolder policies to back those industries.

I know the Secretary of State gave a tub-thumping speech about the 1980s, but the truth is we have made a lot of progress over the last 20 years. I was doing my work as the Minister for Life Sciences, for agritech and for Science and Technology following in the footsteps of Paul Drayson and David Sainsbury. In life science, fusion, AI and quantum, we have built an unbelievably competitive economy, but other countries are moving fast. Our competitors are more agile. We are terrible at adopting technology in the public services. Our scale-ups are not getting the finance they need in the city. Kate Bingham in The Times today is right.

How do we unlock this? I want to suggest a ten-point plan for renewal. I support the Government’s ambition. I say this because if all of us fail, the Benches to my left of pub populists who are promising everything will win, and we will see even deeper disillusionment. I am calling in this speech for, first, real honesty of a 1979 scale about the extent of the emergency; secondly, bold devolution to the people, cities and mayors who know how to do it better—frankly, they could not do worse than Whitehall—thirdly, serious Whitehall reforms, so that we end the juvenile process of His Majesty’s Treasury playing Departments off against each other for funding, which in the end comes very late and is taken back; and fourthly, a serious backing for the innovation economy. I welcome the £20 billion of R&D, but how we allocate it is key. We need to allocate it in a way that attracts private investment. Fifthly, we need a bold revolution of tax incentives for enterprises—a new deal for new business. There should be no national insurance or VAT for a couple of years for someone starting a company and growing it. Sixthly, we need regulation for innovation. That is not just cutting regulations, but leading in setting the regulation. I welcome the Government’s work in setting up the Regulatory Innovation Office. We then have skills and patriotic capitalism. I do not think it is communism to get the city investing in British business. Boldness—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.