Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Debate between Chris McDonald and Jim Shannon

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Critical Minerals Strategy

Debate between Chris McDonald and Jim Shannon

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are extremely concerned about the ecological impact of deep-sea mining. The Government support a moratorium on—I choose my words carefully here—the exploitation of deep-sea mining, while allowing for the exploration of deep-sea mining. As a scientist and engineer myself, I think that the exploration is valuable, to ensure that we gather appropriate data, and I recently commissioned work from the chief scientific adviser in my Department to be fully appraised of the potential environmental impacts of deep-sea mining.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his positive statement. It is great that the Government’s critical minerals strategy aims to reduce our over-reliance on foreign suppliers and to build a more resilient domestic supply chain, which is central to our growth sectors and to clean energy. He referred to the critical and important role of Queen’s University Belfast in magnet-recycling technologies. What steps have been taken to ensure good collaboration with the devolved Governments, to unlock further incentives for extraction projects, and to support domestic improvements through our minerals strategy?

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the critical minerals strategy will benefit every nation in the UK, including Northern Ireland. I am particularly keen to learn more about the ionic liquid separation methods of Ionic Technologies, which has been a flagship project for Queen’s University Belfast. I wrote to the relevant Ministers in the devolved Governments before the launch of the strategy, and I am keen to continue working with them on it.

Specialist Manufacturing Sector: Regional Economies

Debate between Chris McDonald and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris McDonald]

I would have been disappointed had I mentioned the supercharger from the Dispatch Box and my hon. Friend did not intervene—I shall write that into my speeches from now on. His point is well made and is heard by me. A consultation on the British industrial competitiveness scheme will open shortly. I encourage the valve manufacturing industry of Calder Valley to participate in the scheme, and all Members to publicise the scheme to small businesses in their areas.

Hon. Members did not particularly mention regulation, but I want to raise it. Of course, £1 off the costs of regulation is worth £1 off any other business cost. A lack of new funding or of access to finance or working capital can be a reason that businesses fail to grow. Small companies tell me that financial institutions often do not understand their businesses or the need for more patient returns. We are undertaking a programme with the British Business Bank to make available £4 billion for our industrial strategy growth capital in industrial strategy sectors, and the Office for Investment will focus on high-value investments, leveraging the National Wealth Fund’s £27.8 billion for industrial strategy sectors.

Although we hear very strong voices regarding international alignment on products and standards, we also hear about the complexity of business regulation and its impact on smaller businesses. We have set out an ambition to cut the administrative costs of regulation for business by 25%. I am pleased to say that we have released a business questionnaire seeking views on the impact of regulation on businesses. Again, I ask for help from hon. Members in encouraging all manufacturers in their areas to consider closely which regulations are enabling or hindering growth, and where compliance is creating an undue burden.

[Jim Shannon]

I hope the Minister will forgive me if he is going to address my earlier request, which related to the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister back home. I know that he travels to Northern Ireland and has an interest in Northern Ireland, and it is important that we work together. Will he give the commitment I mentioned?

[Chris McDonald]

I did hear the hon. Gentleman say that earlier, and he is right that I have a strong interest in Northern Ireland and a great deal of respect for our advanced manufacturing there. I look forward to visiting the aerospace and shipbuilding industry there soon—I think it will be early in the new year—and I am absolutely committed to working with Northern Irish MPs and the local authorities to ensure that the manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland thrives.

Our plan for small and medium-sized businesses, published this year, includes a number of additional measures aimed at assisting those businesses, including ending late payments, modernising the tax system, establishing the new business growth service, and considering how we can best support exporting businesses to increase their exporting activity.

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Debate between Chris McDonald and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

The right hon. Member speaks of 1,000 jobs a month being lost in the North sea oil and gas industry. That is not a figure I recognise, so I would be happy if he would share the source of that figure with me. However, I have some figures of my own to trade, if he wishes to know them. We are expecting 800,000 jobs to be created in the clean energy industries. We have attracted £52 billion of private sector investment since July 2024, and £5 billion per year of gross value added to the UK economy from carbon capture and storage alone by 2050.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and wish him well in his endeavours. Anybody in this place would be churlish not to wish him well in his endeavours to try to do better—

[Jim Shannon]

Expect there might be one or two to my left-hand side, but that is by the way.

It is sad to hear of yet another large UK company closure next year, this time in Mossmorran. I have seen and experienced similar stories in Northern Ireland, and what springs to mind is always the impact that this will have on the workers. Alongside the Scottish Government, can the Minister provide an assurance that this Government will do all they can to protect the livelihoods of those workers and, indeed, all workers who face redundancy as a result of not being able to find solutions to keep such plants open? We all recognise that these workers need help, and they need it today. What can be done to assure them of a future for their families, their mortgages and the debts they owe?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, which is always sincerely and kindly made. I agree that what will be precisely on the minds of the workforce at Mossmorran right now will be how they will manage in the run-up to Christmas. They will be thinking about whether they will be able to pay an instalment on their holiday in January. The plant is set for closure on 16 February, so there is a bit of time in terms of, as I mentioned, the 40% of the workforce for whom who we will need to find alternative employment.

I mentioned in my statement that the DWP is ready to stand by to help—I appreciate that could sound quite cold, but it does stand ready. Combined with the Scottish Government, the local authority and the support from the UK Government, including the taskforce, that is the support that we will give directly to the employees and their families.

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

Debate between Chris McDonald and Jim Shannon

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

Yes, I do agree with that very timely intervention. In fact, the slogan of Duchenne UK is “Time is muscle”, and it is absolutely right that every day and every week makes a difference to these boys.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. He and I spoke about it the other day. I have some constituents who have had a brave few years with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The problem is that the opportunity of this drug has never been there for them, but it needs to be. Up until now in Northern Ireland, Duchenne treatment has included corticosteroids, physical therapy and other supportive therapies, while access to newer treatments, such as vamorolone or givinostat, are being worked on—we in Northern Ireland have not had access to them either. It seems to be almost a postcode lottery. Does he agree that these drugs could give those young boys a life-changing opportunity that they would never have otherwise, and that, with great respect to the Minister, the Government need to move and ensure that they all get these drugs?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am very pleased that he has intervened and I think the comment about a postcode lottery is exactly right. I noted, when I looked at the figures, that currently the Belfast health and social care trust is not offering the drug to lads in Northern Ireland, because it is claiming that it will cost £309,000 for 13 patients. That is different from the rest of the country by an order of magnitude, so I would be grateful if the Minister looked very carefully at the situation in Northern Ireland.