Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Chris McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

As I was preparing for today’s debate, it struck me that 60 years ago this summer, this House was debating steel nationalisation and the England team went on to win the world cup. We are back here discussing steel nationalisation again, so I have high hopes for the summer.

Sometimes it is informative to learn from the past. Going back to the steel nationalisation of 1966, the Minister of Power opened the debate and said that

“there is no manufacturing industry of such basic importance to the British economy.”—[Official Report, 25 July 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1224.]

Of course, he was right then, and it is true now. However, the steel industry is so good that we have not nationalised it twice; we have nationalised it thrice, because the steel industry was also partly nationalised in 1948. The Minister of Supply said:

“Without steel the life of Britain would collapse.”—[Official Report, 15 November 1948; Vol. 458, c. 53.]

That is absolutely true, as we have heard from Members of the House today.

As the Minister for Industry, part of my mission is to increase the productive capacity of our industry. What we have seen in the steel industry, particularly during 14 years of the Tories, is productive decline. They presided over the loss of great steel plants and a reduction in the productive capacity of those steel plants. The thing is, the decline in market share—from 80% to 30%—was not inevitable. It was a choice born out of inaction and out of a lack of industrial policy.

The reason that this Bill is so important is exactly the same as the reason it was important in 1966: there has been a great technological shift in the industry. Back then, it was continuous casting; now, it is electric arc furnaces. The industry has been de-capitalised by years of under-investment, and it needs to be re-capitalised. Productivity fell off a cliff under the previous Government. It fell repeatedly following the closure of the Redcar blast furnace, and productivity must be improved. These are not the words of someone who is wedded to a socialist principle of nationalisation. They are the words of someone who has spent his life in the steel industry, who ran a business in the steel industry, and who is dedicated to improving productivity in our industry.

I heard the words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), when he opened the debate, and I was quite disappointed. He and I met earlier this week, and my colleagues sitting behind me might be surprised to learn that he was thoughtful and probing in the questions that he asked me. He made some really interesting points, and we had a good discussion. I thought about his points afterwards, and I found it really interesting that he had thought about the things that we will have to bear in mind when we pass this legislation. But what has he done? He has fallen into the Conservatives’ usual trap of presenting this as an ideological debate, instead of a debate about the function of an industry that is vital to this country. That is how they have prosecuted this debate.

I learned something when I was working in the industry. Two years ago, I was running a business in the steel industry. Twenty years ago, I was working at the Scunthorpe steelworks. More than 30 years ago—the House will not believe it—I left school and got a job in the steel industry. There were a lot of changes over that time. Sometimes I stayed in the same job, but the company and the badge on my hard hat changed. When it changed from British Steel to Corus, that was a big blow to how people felt about it, but I will tell the House one thing that I recognised: ownership matters, and it makes a difference. Strategy matters, and it matters where the head office of a business is. People care about the area where they work, and those things are important. The workers care, communities care and we care, but the Conservatives do not care—that is quite clear to me.

[Andrew Griffith]

I will be very brief. I thank the Minister for his remarks. One ideological difference he has not mentioned once is the huge gulf between those on our side and his party on energy, and the Government are not going to have a sustainable steel industry due to energy.

[Chris McDonald]

Yes, the hon. Member is right. There is a gulf there: the Conservatives were in favour of some of the highest industrial energy prices in the world. We have delivered an increase in the supercharger benefit from 60% to 90% and introduced the British industrial competitiveness scheme. Through our investments in chemicals, ceramics and, of course, steel, we are supporting British industry with its operating costs on energy and its capital costs to improve its productivity as well.

In steel communities, they are proud people. They are people who can stand on their own two feet, and they want to; they do not want subsidies. They have pride and they have dignity in their work, and when I went to the Corby steelworks recently, I saw the sacrifice of individuals and communities with their hard and dangerous labour.

[Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)]

The Minister knows the sacrifices that have been made by my constituents at Dalzell plate mill in Motherwell. Will he confirm that this plate mill remains at the heart of the UK steel strategy, and that the Bill we have debated today provides a potential safety net for the future of Dalzell?

[Chris McDonald]

While the Government are minded to nationalise British Steel, we do not have any other nationalisations in mind. However, we do recognise the importance of the Dalzell plate mill, and I am concerned to ensure that it gets back up and running, and delivers its steel ship plate orders. I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she has been doing in championing that.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball)—she is sitting behind me—who has supported me throughout the preparation of this Bill, but cannot speak because of her position in the House. Likewise, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who is also supporting the passage of this Bill, but again cannot speak because of his position. I also thank the Chief Whip, who of course did so much work in advance of this Bill coming forward.

Let me give at least one or two minutes to the amendment. Fundamentally, there is a contradiction in the Opposition’s position in that, if we do not pass this Bill, British Steel is trapped in the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act. The Conservatives supported that legislation, so they do not want to allow British Steel to break out of that. However, I would point out to Conservative Members—and certainly those who feel that the Bill gives too many powers to the Secretary of State—that this Bill has been modelled on the Banking Act. At the time the Banking Act was being passed, a fellow sitting on the Opposition Front Bench called George Osborne—I understand he is popular in Tory circles—said, “I will do everything I can to help this Bill on to the statute book.” I think what we are hearing is that that is good enough for the bankers, but it is not good enough for the steelworkers.

To move on, I am as concerned as the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), to get in private sector investment. We have carried out a very careful balance with this Bill to ensure that the steel industry is fully informed, understands our intentions and is supportive—and it is supportive. Just in the last couple of weeks, 7 Steel has announced a £100 million private sector investment in the steel industry in the UK, so there is no chilling effect from this. In fact, this will be a spur to, or a boost for, private sector investment.

Let me mention some of the speeches. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee mentioned a number of things, but I think he was the only person to raise scrap. We have launched a scrap working group, which will be dealing with that issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) rightly raised the importance of the Llanwern steel plant, and she mentioned import penetration in relation to rebar. My near constituency neighbours, my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), could not have been clearer about how the Tories abandoned the steel communities in Teesside and the difference that this Labour Government are making.

A number of Opposition Members mentioned tariffs. There are no tariffs in this Bill. However, as we heard from the Trade Minister at the Dispatch Box this morning and from the Secretary of State this afternoon, there is an open door for companies to come in and discuss those issues.

Finally, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I have had many exchanges about steel. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we do not agree, but we always have a good discussion. He raised the importance of DRI blast furnaces as well as electric arc furnaces, and he and I will certainly have the opportunity to discuss that much further.

I think it is quite clear that the British Government are not and should not be neutral when it comes to British business, and we are on the side of business. We are unashamedly on the side of British business, and we are unashamedly on the side of the steel industry and steel communities. That is the difference between us and the Opposition, and I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Chris McDonald Excerpts

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

[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.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Yes, the Minister is right: Greg Clark nationalised it. As far as my constituents who work at Scunthorpe are concerned—and, I am sure, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers)—all we want is a viable Scunthorpe. We do not take an ideological line on nationalisation in this case. Given the problems we are now reading about in respect of electric arc technology in Port Talbot, can the Minister commit that the Government are fully committed to the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe?

[Chris McDonald]

Perhaps I can even give a slightly fuller answer than that. The particular issue with that previous nationalisation by the then Secretary of State was that it was effected merely to create a change of ownership, without actually improving the quality of the business or attracting additional investment into the business at the time. It is important to take this Bill in the full context of our steel trade measures and our steel strategy, which lays out a forward plan for the steel industry. Nationalisation is one of the tools that we can use.

The Government have been clear in our steel strategy that we see a transition to electric arc furnaces over time—there are good reasons for that, not least because they are the most productive and efficient technology available and are reliable and tried and tested—but our intervention in the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 and our ongoing support of the British Steel business has been to ensure that we have blast furnace-produced primary steel available as part of that transition. The furnaces in Scunthorpe are the only two working blast furnaces in the UK, and they are currently our only source of primary steel.

The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) also raised reports in the press about delays to the project in south Wales. Delays on such a large project are not unusual, but the specific issue in that case was around the groundworks—I would certainly be happy to expand on that more if it becomes part of the debate. I am, of course, in close contact with Tata Steel about that. In my experience of such projects, it is always difficult to understand what the duration of the project will be until it gets out of the ground, and ultimately there are issues with the groundworks there.

Let me move on to address amendment 21 and the issues raised by the shadow Minister. In terms of its structure, the Bill is very much modelled on the Banking Act 2009, which received incredibly broad support. The clauses in part 1 are vital to the operation of the Bill, and I urge the Committee to reject attempts to remove them.

While I understand the consideration that has gone into the preparation of the amendments, narrowing the scope of the definition of a steel undertaking would, in the Government’s view, introduce ambiguity rather than clarity. In practice, there are unlikely to be many undertakings operating at scale in both steelmaking and an unrelated business practice; if there were, the Government would look to exercise powers in a way that focused on what was necessary to operate the steelmaking business. The drafting of the Bill follows on from the text of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act. The Government are therefore of the view that amendment 21 is not necessary.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I fully support the need to buy British, but does the Minister recognise that JCB, based in my constituency, cannot source the grade and size of steel required for its machines entirely from the UK, and that a significant proportion of its steel comes from the EU? The proposed tariffs will apply to imported steel even when no UK alternative exists, so they are due to cost JCB millions. Will the Minister look into the matter urgently and meet me and JCB to discuss it?

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend raises a specific point about JCB. I am reasonably familiar with its business, and I think its particular concern may be around the sourcing of plate steel. The steel trade measures—the tariffs and quotas that we announced—are designed to ensure that the UK is not subject to subsidised steel, which would damage our upstream industry, and will certainly help to support the upstream sector. Of course, we need a strong upstream sector in order to have a strong downstream sector. The issue with plate steel is that the Dalzell plate mill in Scotland, which is capable of making many of these steels, has not been operating for some time. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and JCB to discuss that in more detail.

[Mark Pritchard]

rose—

[Chris McDonald]

I was just going to address the point the right hon. Gentleman made about the business in his constituency. I am not familiar with that business, but the general approach we have taken is to ensure that the groupings of steel under the trade measures are subject to the tariffs where those steels are or can be made in the UK, accepting that some of them are not but could be made in the UK, including at operations such as Dalzell. It is not always possible to separate all those steels out based on the groupings, so that is the purpose of the quota.

I am always interested to hear of specific examples. I had a meeting with a business last week for which this appeared to be a concern, but once we discussed the issue in detail we found that it was not an issue for the business, because of some of the arrangements that were in place. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to share further details about that case, I am keen to hear them.

[Mark Pritchard]

For clarity—perhaps I was not clear— a constituent of mine runs the company but the company itself is actually in another constituency, and it employs people throughout the west midlands. Could I write to the Minister about that particular case in order to seek more clarity?

[Chris McDonald]

indicated assent.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful for that. I want to make two brief points on tariffs, which the Minister mentioned. First, the Shropshire chamber of commerce has said:

“There is growing concern that tariffs may be applied to certain materials and products that are not currently available from UK manufacturers”.

I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on that. Secondly, concerns have been raised about fabricated steel products that appear to fall outside the tariff regime. In practice, that could create an unintended incentive for steel-processing fabrication work to move overseas to avoid tariff costs. Will the Minister comment on that?

[Chris McDonald]

I am aware of that issue as well, and if the right hon. Gentleman would like to include all those issues in the letter, I will be happy to provide him with a response.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I have been contacted by Coker Engineering in my constituency, which supplies Rolls-Royce, Leonardo and other defence companies. It can only use steels from certified electric arc mills of certain types and is worried about facing 50% tariffs after 1 July, once tariff-free goods have been used up. Will the Minister similarly look at its concerns and consider exemptions for steels that cannot be sourced in the UK?

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Member might wish to let the business know that we have committed to a 12-month review of these tariffs, which, as I said, apply to steels that are made or could be made in the UK. I am aware that Speciality Steel UK is currently not operational as it is going through an administration process. Although the sort of high-quality aerospace steels that he mentioned may not be made there, I think it is probably the most likely location where they will be made, subject to those certifications, which are held by that business. The official receiver is currently in exclusive discussions with the business and a potential owner, so it is possible that the company he refers to may see a UK supplier soon, but if he shares the details with me, I will certainly be able to give him a fuller response.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Interestingly, there is also a Coker facility in my constituency, and I have had several other businesses write to me on this subject. Only last week I visited the London Screw Company in Halesowen, which is really concerned that the 50% tariffs will increase the price of its products and make it uncompetitive. Although I am pleased that there will be a 12-month review, I wonder if that will come soon enough for such businesses in my constituency. Can the Minister provide any relief in the interim for those that may be on the verge of something more serious?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of the London Screw Company, and also for the discussion he had with me about that very company last week. It looks to me to produce an extraordinarily high-quality range of products, and certainly better than I normally find for my DIY projects, so it is my intention to patronise that company in future—we should all have more high-quality ironmongery, I believe. In a similar vein, if my hon. Friend writes to me with further details, I will ensure that my officials look at that matter, but in the first instance we would look to see whether those steels are made or could be made in the UK.

Unless there are any further questions about downstream steel producing, I will move on to address more of the shadow Minister’s comments. She talked about the public interest test in clause 2. Some of the amendments would limit the test exclusively to consideration of the three factors in clause 2, whereas amendment 23 seeks to expand them to include the prevention of closure or job losses in Wales. The inclusion of the three factors in the Bill offers some additional weight, and of course any assessment of an intervention will need to be considered against them. However, there may be a good rationale for an intervention that moved beyond that and did not sit squarely under those factors, so in our view it would be sensible not to bind the hands of the Government in that way.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Minister McDonald, I believe you wish to contribute again.

[Chris McDonald]

There is so much so say, and so little time until the rise of the House. Members who are standing may wish to take a seat, because we might be here for a little while.

[The Chairman]

In case you are confused, Minister, we have until 10 o’clock.

[Chris McDonald]

Indeed, Madam Chair—I was banking on 10 o’clock.

I thank all Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin); the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney); and the former leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), for the extremely constructive and civil way in which this debate has been conducted. I know that that comes from a real enthusiasm among all Members in the Committee for having a successful steel industry.

In fact, there were many points of agreement in the debate. In debating the amendments to the first part of the Bill, the importance of the steel industry came through extremely strongly, as did the importance and reliability of the use of public money. We all share that view across this Committee, and we also want there to be extreme care in the use of the powers in the Bill. I know that Members who moved amendments in that regard are concerned about that, and the Government are too. I will address some of those points, and I will endeavour to address some of the points raised by Members during the debate. I will start by addressing a recurring theme in the debate: what nationalisation is.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am thrilled that the Minister has until 10 o’clock to speak—if you are agreeable, Madam Chair, we will have lots of interventions. The issue is not whether people agree with the nationalisation of the steel sector, so we can set that aside; the issue is whether we will have a steel manufacturing sector that can produce steel for all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We in Northern Ireland need the steel from here, and we need it for our defence sector, which is really important. Just before Christmas, my pastor in my church told me, “There are 69 wars in the world.” We have to be prepared for the world wars we are going to have to fight. We need a steel sector to do that, and what the Minister has put forward is a justification for it.

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The steel sector is vital for our national security and our infrastructure and construction industries throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. He speaks very well about that.

Nationalisation or national ownership is not an objective in and of itself; it is simply a pragmatic tool of industrial strategy that can be deployed with care in order to achieve legitimate aims of Government. If we think about some of the nationalisations of the past, it may be that some of those were driven by the pragmatic use of industrial strategy, and it may be that some were driven by ideology. In general, the way that the nationalisation of a business works is that the Government intervene when a business is in distress or is no longer viable but is important. Those businesses are returned to the private sector only once they are successful.

Contrary to the narrative that is often peddled about public ownership, the purpose of public ownership is to pick up businesses when there is a market failure or where a private sector operator is unable to continue. We have seen that in other instances, such as in the railway industry. I see nationalisation simply as a useful and pragmatic tool of industrial strategy.

[Sarah Champion]

Does the Minister share my concern and confusion about the comments made by the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart)? I was not sure if he was supporting the nationalisation of British Steel but thought that there was not enough money or that there was too much money. However, he seemed to support the fact that in Europe, the Government subsidise electricity, and I felt that he wanted that to happen here. For all the reasons that Members have said, I just want a really strong and secure steel industry in this country.

[Chris McDonald]

I think the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) also wants a strong steel industry, but he has been quite clear that he does not see nationalisation as a tool for delivering that—I think that is fair. He is also concerned about the use of public money, which I think is fair as well. I shall address both of those points as I continue.

I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) raised those issues. This is an opportune time to mention that in her earlier comments, she asked for an update on the current status of the Speciality Steel UK business, which I know affects her constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). That business shows the power of a productive Government intervention, working carefully with industry, because the Government have underwritten the costs of the official receiver to allow a proper sale of the business. The official receiver is in exclusive discussions with a potential buyer, and there was a high level of interest in the business from the market.

As we look forward to the potential sale of the business, we can see the vital role that the Government have played in recognising that steel undertakings are complex, that it can be difficult and can take time to assess them, and that they require high levels of working capital. That contrasts significantly with Governments in the past, who allowed steel companies to close simply by not allowing that process to continue.

[Sarah Champion]

Will the Minister give way?

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris McDonald]

I will take an intervention from the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness. Given that he was referenced, it would be helpful to give him the right to reply.

[Graham Stuart]

To help the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), I do not think I said anything about subsidising. What I am looking for, and what I think all of us across this Committee would like to see, is the continuation of steel, especially in a dangerous world. I was questioning whether we have a coherent strategy and sufficient funding to take the steel industry—the specific site in Scunthorpe and others—on the journey that the Minister set out, which requires intervention to take it back to being a thriving industry. I worry that there is not such a pathway or sufficient resource, so we could be in the worst of all possible worlds, where we just bleed public money without it leading to the restitution of a healthy steel industry in this country. That is what I am looking for an answer to.

[Chris McDonald]

Let me address that point. It is helpful for us to think about the potential options. There is agreement across the Committee that we want a successful and thriving steel industry, and the Government have made some serious financial commitments. We have committed £500 million to support the transformation of the plant in Port Talbot, which has attracted another £500 million of private sector investment. We have committed £2.5 billion through our steel strategy and an additional £400 million to support the Forgemasters operation, which is successfully under public ownership.

We have to think about the potential options. Given that the Government have put that money on the table and are seeking private sector partners to work with for all our steel plants, the alternative would be the closure and the loss of those facilities. This comes down to a judgment as to whether we think the UK is capable of having a successful, profitable and investable private sector industry.

It is the Government’s view that it is possible for the UK to have that, not least when we compare ourselves with similar advanced economies in Europe—we are not necessarily comparing ourselves with low-cost economies around the world—but it is a matter of ensuring that we have the right business environment to enable that to happen, and it is clearly incumbent on Government to arrange policy in that way. I think our steel strategy, in particular, and our trade measures provide that response, which is what gives us confidence that we have the resources to do that.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris McDonald]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will take the second intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, and then I will give way to him.

[Sarah Champion]

The Minister is being very generous with his time. I want to take him back to the issue of Speciality Steel, because this is not just about the business itself—it is also about the supply chain. For example, the steel that is made in my constituency goes into Formula 1 cars and almost every plane in the sky. I think many hon. Members need to understand the consequential impact of saving not only British Steel, but all of our steel industry, on our whole economy and on global industries.

[Chris McDonald]

The supply chain is incredibly important. My hon. Friend is right about the jobs and the economic value in the supply chain; my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) also referenced the supply chain, and particularly how its needs relate to the measures in the Bill.

A number of the proposed amendments to the Bill would ultimately slow down the ability of the Secretary of State to make decisions—that point was also made by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness. If the Secretary of State cannot act swiftly, there is a risk of greater uncertainty among employees and commercial partners in the supply chain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor rightly said. That can have real-world consequences for businesses that rely on trade finance or other forms of working capital support, as a lack of confidence can rapidly turn into business closures. While some of those amendments are well-meaning—I am speaking particularly about amendments 2, 3, 18 and 19—they would fundamentally interfere with the speed and operational ability of the Secretary of State under the legislation and reduce legal certainty.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does the Minister believe that the Government’s current energy strategy is consistent with a successful British steel industry, or does he envisage that energy strategy having to change in order to lower industrial electricity prices?

[Chris McDonald]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that question, because it was mentioned by a number of Members during the debate. To go back to the point about having a business environment that creates a profitable and investable steel industry, energy is clearly part of that. Some of the changes that the Government have already made—increasing the rebate on the supercharger from 60% to 90%, or the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will support some of the downstream industry—will be particularly helpful in supporting not only the steel industry but other parts of heavy industry between now and 2030, which is when the Government’s clean power mission will come fully online. We anticipate that at that point, we will have not only clean energy, but secure and lower-cost energy.

If we consider the timescale of some of the investments in steel companies that we are talking about—not only multiple-year investments in order to commission, but multiple-decade investments beyond that—we can see that we have a pathway on energy that will enable us to get from now to 2030 and beyond. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who is not currently in his place, was concerned about this issue as well. He was also concerned that the UK has the highest energy prices in Europe, but we do not currently, and it is certainly our plan to ensure that our energy prices for industry are competitive with Europe in future.

Returning to the amendments that have been tabled, there was quite a lot of discussion about the sunset clause in the Bill. There were a number of objections to it, but the case for its continuation was made extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). As it stands today, the Government have no intention of extending the sunset period, but we recognise that we are living through particularly volatile times. There is geopolitical and economic uncertainty, which is likely to have a bearing on the steel sector in ways that it is difficult for us to see at the moment. As such, our view is that it is simply pragmatic to include this level of flexibility in the Bill, and of course, regulations made under that clause would be subject to the affirmative procedure.

It is important that I address some of the concerns of the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies), who spoke with great passion and commitment about the importance of the steel industry throughout the whole of Wales. There is often considerable discussion of Port Talbot in this House, but as she rightly set out, there are also steelworks in Llanwern, Cardiff, Newport, Trostre and Shotton—I hope I have remembered all of them—that deserve recognition and investment.

I could not disagree more, however, that this Government have treated the Welsh steel industry unfairly, or not in an equitable way, compared with the steel industry elsewhere in the UK. The steel industry in Wales is the only part of the industry that has a ringfenced fund—£500 million for Port Talbot. The hon. Lady said that that has been spent with no benefit to the local community, but I frankly cannot agree with that. That £500 million has enabled Port Talbot to invest an additional £500 million in a transformation of that steelworks that will secure steel production at that site and the future of the south Wales steel industry for decades to come. It is a significant investment in the local community.

I know that the hon. Lady, like me, would have preferred for that transition in south Wales to have happened without the hard stop between the closure of the blast furnaces and the restart of the electric arc furnace, and I support Tata Steel’s view on the installation of its electric arc furnace. However, the decision to close was taken before the general election, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—the former Secretary of State, who is now Chief Whip—was able to intervene at that point and get a much better deal for the workers at Port Talbot and the community there than the previous Government did. I share the hon. Lady’s frustration and concern, but we need to be clear about where the indifference to the blast furnace closures in Port Talbot was. It was not with this Government; it was with the then Conservative Government.

[Richard Tice]

As we are talking about the new electric arc furnace in Port Talbot, can the Minister guarantee with certainty his confidence that, when built, it will open?

[Chris McDonald]

I am really glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that question—I know he has great experience in the property industry, and certainly with construction projects. As I mentioned earlier in the debate and as he will know very well, in any construction project you only really have certainty on the timeline when you have got out of the ground, and this project is still very much in the ground.

The hon. Gentleman’s question gives me the opportunity to clear up some issues. I know that the delay as reported by Tata Steel—this is Tata Steel’s project, not the Government’s—related to an electrical connection, and specifically the soil condition as it relates to building a substation. At the outset, quite rightly, assumptions were made about the soil condition based on engineering assessments. Right hon. and hon. Members must be aware, though, that there have been steelmaking activities on that site in Port Talbot for well over 100 years. Not all of those operations had been fully documented, and the ground conditions were considerably worse than had been anticipated. That is now being dealt with, and as soon as the project gets out of the ground, we will have great certainty about when the electric arc furnace can turn on. Until that happens, as a project manager, I would hesitate to give a cast-iron guarantee, because you need to get out of the ground first.

What I am looking forward to, though, is the delivery of the electric arc furnace in Port Talbot, because that is the point when the project will feel real—when the workforce will be able to see the furnace itself. I have been around the shop and seen the space that has been created for the installation of the furnace, but once it arrives on the dock of Port Talbot, we will all feel a greater degree of certainty about that. That will be a big boost to the workforce when it does happen. I am absolutely confident that it will happen, but to say when—to pin it down to an individual week or month—is more difficult.

There was one more point I wanted to make about the contribution of the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin. She essentially called for public ownership of Port Talbot, and I am really sorry, but that is another point on which we disagree.

The Government’s view is that where a steel undertaking is running adequately under private ownership, that ultimately should be allowed to continue, because the Government believe in private involvement in the steel sector. It goes back to the point about investment that I think the shadow Minister made earlier. She described her concern about a potential chilling effect on investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for putting on the record this Labour Government’s record on Welsh steel, because it contrasts with the 14 years of ruin under the Tory Government. Their failure to have an industrial strategy caused decisions to be taken in Port Talbot before this Government came into power. The Tories do not like to be reminded of that, but we will remind them about it every time. It is something that Plaid Cymru—I have great respect for the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies)—and Reform would do well to remember when they turn up for their photo op outside Port Talbot.

I want to touch on something that my constituents are grateful for, which is this Government’s steel strategy. As the Minister rightly says, that resulted in a £100 million investment by Sev.en in 7 Steel in Cardiff. Does he agree that that is not only a sign of the importance of the steel strategy, but will mean that at least half of future UK steelmaking will be Welsh steel? All Members in the House should welcome that.

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. He is right that we should welcome that 50% of UK steel will be made in Wales. We talk about Port Talbot specifically, but 7 Steel’s plant has operated incredibly well for so long, making the rebar steels that are essential for our construction industry in the United Kingdom, as well as in Ireland, which 7 Steel supplies, too. Long may that continue. I am sure that the investment will help with that.

The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) raised a number of concerns, such as the operation of the Bill, its powers, public money and so on. He made a comparison with the Banking Act 2009, and he is right that I have made great play about the similarity between this Bill and that Act. I reassure Members that, having passed the Banking Act to great acclaim, this Bill is following its path, and we made a positive decision to do that.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the requirement in the Banking Act for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I believe, to consult with the Prudential Regulatory Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England, and how a consultation requirement is not in the Bill. He is right to point that out, but these are different industries. The banking industry is highly regulated, and there are statutory bodies that require consultation. There is no opportunity to replicate that in the steel sector, because there are no such statutory bodies. He rightly made the point that it is important that we engage on the detail in Committee, and I thank him for raising that point and giving me the opportunity to respond.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister quickly and helpfully responded to my earlier intervention, and he will be well aware of the economic position of Northern Ireland due to the Windsor framework. Should the Bill go forward, the Government must provide a cast-iron guarantee that the nationalisation and supply chain structures outlined in this Bill will operate seamlessly. Can he give us a guarantee that that will happen and that Northern Ireland will not be disadvantaged by any new tariffs or tariffs that are already in place?

[Chris McDonald]

From the Government’s perspective, there is certainly no intention to disadvantage Northern Ireland. The unique position that Northern Ireland holds is enabling it to attract additional investment above and beyond. In fact, the economic growth rate in Northern Ireland is incredibly impressive, and I look forward to seeing that when I visit in two or three weeks’ time.

Having addressed the amendments, I will move on to some of the new clauses. First, I acknowledge the incredibly constructive dialogue I have had with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) in preparing for the Bill and the tabling of her amendments. New clause 2 would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult an advisory committee as part of his decision-making process. The Government agree with the sentiment—we have had wide consultation with stakeholders—but there is a practical reality and in particular a commercial consideration for the exercise of the Bill’s powers. It is therefore not possible for us to accept that new clause.

New clause 3 relates to the detail of a jobs and industrial transition strategy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor asked a specific question about. I reassure Parliament that from a skills perspective, the Government will assess any impacts of a transfer on jobs, skills and local communities. In fact, that is an incredibly important part of why we would seek to intervene at all. Following an acquisition, the company’s objectives will be published as part of the shareholder framework document.

Finally, I will move on to new clause 5. Again, this issue was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor, and it also comes back to where I started the discussion about the nature of a nationalisation. While the Government in this situation would own a steel undertaking, and as the main shareholder in the business would have the opportunity to set the direction and appropriate strategic objectives, it is not the Government’s aim that the steel companies would then become an extension of the civil service, as amazing as my civil servants are. Instead, steel undertakings should be run by those who are knowledgeable and skilled in the industry, as we have seen at Sheffield Forgemasters and, as we heard, at the semiconductor factory at Octric.

Having covered the amendments and the new clauses, and perhaps tried the patience of the Committee to a great extent, it would be wise to conclude. I point out to hon. and right hon. Members that there is an additional day of debate on the Floor of the House on this Bill tomorrow. Rather than me standing here and talking to myself for six hours, they would be most welcome to come back then. If I have addressed their points sufficiently, perhaps some of those who have tabled amendments may see fit not to press them to Divisions, but otherwise, I feel I have addressed the points sufficiently for now.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pamela Nash]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for the publication of the defence investment plan, but I do not think it is within the scope of this Bill and it is definitely above my pay grade as a Parliamentary Private Secretary to Defence Ministers.

Finally, I want to see Dalzell again supporting a vibrant workforce, providing safe, well-paid, high-quality jobs to local people and being able to develop apprentices for the next generation of steel processing in Scotland. I want to see income investment in Motherwell from the reinvigoration of this plant, allowing surrounding businesses to benefit from its success. I reject the attempts of Opposition Members to limit the Bill’s ability to support our industry when it needs it most.

In his closing speech, will the Minister reassure the workers at Dalzell that this Government will support them, possibly with the safety net of this Bill or otherwise, whenever it is necessary? Will he also confirm to the people of Motherwell that Dalzell remains at the heart of this Government’s plans for the UK steel industry?

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

Just like yesterday, this second day of debate has been incredibly considered and collaborative. I very much thank everyone for contributing, just as they did yesterday.

Having listened very carefully to the debate, I think many of the proposed amendments and new clauses fall into categories to do with the good use of public money in relation to valuations and liabilities, and to the role of this Parliament in scrutiny and reporting. I say at the outset, and I think this was put quite well by my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke (Pamela Nash)—she did so in an intervention I had slightly forgotten about—that the Government are trying to strike a balance. We must strike a balance between the essential nature of government, with our public accountability and also the obvious bureaucracy, and the commercial demands of business. I think we have found the balance in the right place, and as I address some of the amendments, I hope to convince hon. Members that we have given due consideration to that.

Many Members, quite understandably, have highlighted specific cases in the steel industry that they believe the Government should consider. We have heard very powerfully about the plate mill at Dalzell and we have also heard about British Steel. However, this Bill is not targeted at any particular steel company; it provides powers to the Secretary of State to act in the national interest.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

This is not my specialist subject, so I ask the Minister to bear with me. Thames Covers in Shepperton in my Spelthorne constituency, which is a boat fitter, has been told that the cost of stainless steel tubing will go up by 50% from 1 July because of a new tariff kicking in. As I understand it, the tariff is to encourage people to buy British Steel, but the trouble is that British Steel does not make stainless steel tubing, so it will add a huge cost. The Minister says the Bill is not about individual businesses, but about overall governance. However, the Government may be causing unintended consequences, and perhaps the impact assessments we are calling for in new clause 7 would be a good idea.

[Chris McDonald]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for taking the trouble to make that intervention. A number of Members have talked about downstream steel, so although it is not precisely within the scope of this Bill—and, in fact, I do not think those impact assessments would address that point—perhaps I could address their comments.

Members have mentioned several different companies. This morning, I had a very constructive discussion with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), about specific instances, but she also pressed me on the concerns of many Members across the whole House. There are concerns about the introduction of the new trade measures from 1 July. I have, with the co-operation of Members from across the House, been able to gather specific examples from a number of different companies around the country that are concerned.

I am engaging with my officials and it is a matter of detail for each company. Some are finding that they will still be able to access the steels, because the measures are targeted at steels that are either currently produced or could be produced in the UK. Some have a concern because the steels that could be produced are produced primarily as speciality steels, or perhaps at Dalzell plate mill, as we have heard—certainly, the measures should incentivise some production there. Owing to the nature of the trade measures—they are grouped under eight broad categories, rather than extremely specific grade codes—some grades that are not made in the UK, such as seamless tubes, could be drawn into that. That is where quotas are important, so it is really an assessment of whether the quotas are right. Again, we have been able to provide reassurance on those instances.

However, I would never claim that the Government are infallible—I am certainly not—so that is why it has been very important to collect information and take action. In fact, I can inform the hon. Gentleman that tomorrow I am co-chairing a meeting with the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), in whose area this matter strictly falls, to talk specifically to downstream businesses. I would like to acknowledge not only Members, but the Confederation of British Metalforming and the British Constructional Steelwork Association, which have worked with me so closely on this matter.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

[Helena Dollimore]

I recently met a local steel business to discuss this issue and how it can source more British steel in line with the principles of the Bill. It raised with me a keen desire to source as much as possible in Britain, but it is not sure if it can actually source all the products it needs in Britain. It mentioned hot rolled coil as one example. The business is called Fowle & Co. and it would be great if the Minister could commit for his officials to meet my local business and hear its experience.

[Chris McDonald]

I am aware of the issue with the springs company raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). I think it is particularly an issue around 13 metre bars. My office is arranging a meeting with the company concerned. I am also aware of the issue on hot rolled coil and am addressing that, too.

[Jamie Stone]

I assure the Chamber that I shall not mention power of any particular sort. Will the Minister, if he has not done so, think about having a word with the Scottish Government and how they might help him in his endeavours?

[Chris McDonald]

I am always very happy to receive help from everywhere, but the Scottish Government could help themselves by taking a more proactive approach to nuclear, as the hon. Gentleman identified earlier. The Scottish economy could benefit from that.

Let me make some progress. I want to turn to the parts of the Bill that Members have raised in the debate, and thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the shadow Minister for the amendments they have tabled. Amendment 4 was one of the amendments intended to extend reporting requirements around financial assistance and compensation under section 52. In the case of compensation, that is of course a one-off payment and so the question of regular reporting does not arise.

On the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, to which the hon. Lady spoke earlier, amendment 6 is about taking into account ETS, CBAM and so on in valuations.

A number of comments were made about valuations and the role of the independent valuer, which we will also touch on when we consider the new clauses on capping compensation. It is particularly important that we draw a distinction between the role of Government and that of the independent valuer here, which goes back to some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. It is a serious and rare intervention that the Government are making, and one that should happen only when there is a market failure or a company is in distress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Myer]

The Minister is right in what he says about trade. On amendment 6, however, industry is concerned that phasing out free allowances before the new CBAM is fully tested risks exposing UK industry to carbon leakage. Does he agree that the new CBAM must be robustly designed and implemented to genuinely level the playing field for industry?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metals-related industries. The Treasury is responsible for the carbon border adjustment mechanism and is consulting extremely carefully with the industry on that. I am sure that the Treasury will have heard his remarks and will take them into account.

Amendments 7 to 9 relate primarily to some of the environmental liabilities. The issue also arose in yesterday’s debate, where there were concerns about liabilities—the phrase “unlimited liabilities” might have been used. However, the liabilities are not unlimited. We have a reasonably good sense of what the liabilities are. We would expect the valuer to take those liabilities into account—that is quite right—but we have extensive experience with the remediation of similar sites elsewhere in the country.

The Committee has heard about the Ravenscraig site, but the Teesside site is a more recent example. The remediation of the Teesside site—the amount of public money spent on that—is well documented. The site in Scunthorpe is of a similar age, has had similar industrial activity, and is of a similar size. Ultimately, however, the Government are seeking to avoid the crystallisation of environmental liabilities by ensuring the continued operation of steel on the site. It is the responsibility of the valuer to take that into account when determining the valuation of the company. For that reason, the Government do not consider it necessary to support amendments 7 to 9.

Amendments 10 and 11 propose increasing the frequency of reporting on financial assistance to every three months. Again, it is the Government’s view that the current framework is proportionate in terms of the balance between transparency and delivery. We are incredibly concerned to ensure that we do not impose unnecessary administrative burdens. Inevitably, the management of a business acquired through the Bill and the civil servants in my Department would have to deal with the reasons for the business’s acquisition. Although we of course feel that reporting, transparency and accountability to this House are important, we are trying to strike a balance.

I know that amendment 20 is particularly important to the Opposition, so I will spend a bit of time on it. We are all incredibly concerned about value for money, but we have existing arrangements across Government to deal with that. It is already the case that Departments must secure value for money under the Treasury’s managing public money framework. It is also our view that the drafting of the amendment does not quite meet the requirement as described: that the National Audit Office would check the assistance prior to being approved. We think that putting this requirement in statute would unnecessarily reduce the Government’s ability to act quickly where support is needed. We have heard from many contributions today that on the presumption that the legislation will be required, the Government must be able to move quickly.

We have seen the need for acting quickly before. Harking back to a previous example of a failed steel business, I recall that we had only a matter of days within which to save the Teesside business due to a shortage of coal. Of course, we all remember that it was necessary to come back to Parliament at incredibly short notice to pass the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025, again because there was a shortage of coal, with the potential for those coal shipments to be diverted. It is therefore incredibly important that the Secretary of State is able to act quickly when required.

A couple of amendments have been proposed by Plaid Cymru Members—although they are not present, I think it is still responsible to address them. One amendment is about restricting the National Wealth Fund, with which I completely disagree. The National Wealth Fund is one of Government’s primary instruments for assessing potential investment opportunities and investing in industry. In fact, there is provision through the Government’s £2.5 billion steel fund for the National Wealth Fund to offer support to steel companies, as set out in the steel strategy. We intend to use whatever funding instruments are available to Government, not to restrict them.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Although Plaid Cymru Members are not present, another Welsh Member is. With the Minister mentioning the available funding, I will take the opportunity to raise a topical matter with him, which is the catastrophic fire that took place on the pickle line last week in Port Talbot. I want to put on the record our thanks to the emergency services and the steelworkers who worked so hard to contain it, as I know from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock). The work is now being transferred to Llanwern, but it is a worrying time for those at Port Talbot. Does the Minister agree that, alongside the Bill, we must protect the jobs in the south Wales steel industry and ensure that they are fully equipped to support the expansion of sovereign steel that we all want to see as we go forward?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the incident last Wednesday at the Port Talbot site. Pickle lines are notoriously susceptible to these sorts of incidents because of the high-temperature hydrochloric acid used to treat the steels. I would imagine that once such a blaze has taken hold, the effects can be absolutely devastating. I want to echo her commendation of the emergency services and the workforce, who are, in this situation, the first responders, protecting life and valuable industrial plants. I was incredibly relieved to hear shortly after the incident that every single member of staff was accounted for. It is a credit to Tata Steel and its management processes.

I am, however, concerned about our loss of productive capacity there as a result of this incident. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, we are fortunate in having another pickle line available in Llanwern, and I understand that as of last Friday Tata Steel is looking at restarting that plant and moving the work there—perhaps it has already restarted—but the hot mill was down for a time in Port Talbot. This really emphasises where we have points of vulnerability in our industrial capacity, not only in steel but more broadly. We are determined to address those points through this Bill, our steel strategy and our wider industrial strategy. I thank her for raising that matter.

[Luke Myer]

I thank the Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous. He has made a couple of references to the Teesside site, both to the crash closure in 2015 and to the remediation of the land. With that land having now been remediated, immense steel structures are being built there as part of the Government’s carbon capture programme. It was great to be on site recently and to see the progress of that site. The project is using 50% UK steel; of course, Liberty Steel in Hartlepool has benefited from that. Does the Minister agree that procurement measures like contracts for difference need to be adjusted to ensure that we are using domestic steel in as much of our major infrastructure projects as possible?

[Chris McDonald]

I agree that procurement has an important role to play here. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have welcomed recent changes in guidance by the Cabinet Office to ensure that British steel producers are well placed to win these orders, as well as in the areas of renewable energy, where the Government are awarding significant contracts, and nuclear power, where we are again endeavouring to ensure that British companies are well placed to win those contracts.

I turn to amendment 22 and new clauses 4 and 12, which would impose statutory caps on compensation and financial assistance. I have already addressed compensation, and financial assistance is somewhat similar in that applying a cap on the basis of the number of employees, or indeed a fixed cap of any kind, would ultimately restrain the Government’s ability to respond effectively to circumstances as they evolve.

I believe that could fundamentally undermine the purpose of the Bill, which is for the Government, with the will of Parliament, to be ready to respond to circumstances such that we are not required to fly back from wherever we are in the world at incredibly short notice, and prolong uncertainty among the workforce and suppliers. We do not want to create any legal uncertainty, uncertainty in the supply chain or commercial uncertainty. That is why it is important to have this level of flexibility.

The Bill has proportionate and robust transparency and accountability mechanisms for the provision of financial assistance. For instance, clause 59 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament at 12-monthly intervals, and funding will be subject to the established framework for managing public money, including through Treasury approval processes.

New clause 6 would place on the Secretary of State a requirement to put forward a proposal to Parliament about providing financial assistance if a Select Committee were to make recommendations on that. Again, that is not realistic. Given that financial support would be required immediately following a transfer, there would not be time for that level of parliamentary scrutiny. Important though scrutiny is—I certainly welcome the investigation into steel currently being carried out by the Public Accounts Committee—we have to be realistic about the point at which it is possible to apply scrutiny.

New clause 7 would require impact assessments to be published before exercising the Bill’s provisions. Again, the issue is essentially about pace among other things. We believe that impact assessments are crucial to show the impact of Government intervention, and the Government are committed to operating in line with our better regulation framework requirements. We do not want to introduce any further legal uncertainty, so we reject the new clause.

A number of colleagues mentioned new clause 9, so it is important to address some of the issues raised around that. Fundamentally, the new clause would not be at all helpful; I will give an example as to why. There is an assumption in the new clause that if the Government were to nationalise a business under the Bill, the best approach would be to treat it like a hot potato and immediately throw it away. We have seen the impact of that.

We heard yesterday about the nationalisation—briefly—of British Steel by the previous Conservative Government: they spent £750,000, made no investment in the business and immediately sold it on to a company called Greybull Capital, whose track record was failure at Monarch airlines, failure at Comet electrical stores and failure at Rileys snooker halls. If you cannot run a snooker hall, you definitely cannot run a steel company.

This is where the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I have some points of agreement: there is more than one way to bring investment into a business other than selling it to an overseas investor. We could have debt and equity finance, and the Conservative party used to be keen on mass public ownership via a listing on the London Stock Exchange. There are many different ways in which we can bring private sector investment into a business and resolve issues around ownership.

Of course, it is intolerable to work in a business that is constantly up for sale—I have been in that position myself—as businesses do not perform in that position. A decision to sell a business is a decision made at a point in time, not an ongoing process. The Government therefore reject that new clause.

Given that I have detained the Committee considerably over the last couple of days, I have no wish to do so any further. I hope that, having responded as fully as I can to the amendments and new clauses, the Members who tabled them might feel sufficiently reassured not to press them and therefore save the House their consideration. I fully and sincerely thank everyone for their incredible participation in the debate, for the marvellous speeches that we have heard today, and for their strong interest in the steel industry that I have worked in and which I continue to champion in this House.

[Sarah Olney]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 7.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 52 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Financial assistance

Amendment proposed: 20, page 39, line 7, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State may only provide financial assistance under this section if they are satisfied that financial assistance will secure value for money.”—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.