Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Debate between Clive Betts and Jeremy Wright

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I can accept that there is broad agreement in this place that we should take action to preserve virgin steelmaking capability in the UK, but quite frankly, it is not enough for this House just to agree that we should do something. It is our responsibility to look at the detail of what the Government are proposing and to decide whether it is properly targeted and appropriate for the task. There is not going to be a Committee stage or a Report stage in this Bill; that is what the clock tells us. This is our only opportunity to look at the detail of the Bill, and I am afraid that precious little of that has been done today.

Let us have a look at what powers the Secretary of State is going to be given—by the end of today, as things will probably unfold. The Secretary of State will have powers that apply to all steel manufacturers in England and Wales, not just to the particular company over which he has specific concern. There will no doubt be shivers running down the spine at Tata Steel as well, because the Bill applies to that company too. The Secretary of State can act, according to this Bill, in order to instruct those companies to deal in specific ways with what are described as “specified assets”. As I mentioned to him earlier, that does not limit the measure to blast furnaces or to anything else that is specifically required to generate virgin steel. The Secretary of State can give directions to ask and require a company to do pretty much anything that company could otherwise do, and if the company refuses to do it, the Government have powers to take control of assets, including powers to enter premises by force if necessary, and criminal penalties that can lead to imprisonment. These are very serious powers indeed, and I am afraid that this House is simply not being given the opportunity to scrutinise them as they require. They also look suspiciously, by the way, like nationalisation—so perhaps it would be easier to call this thing what it really is.

Let me address one or two specifics before I finish. I hope that the Secretary of State, for whom I have huge respect, will think about—I think he has and will—some of the problems that this legislation will throw up. First, there is highly likely to be considerable controversy over whether a company in question is complying with a Government instruction. A company is likely to argue that point. As the Secretary of State pointed out, in respect of his particular concern we are dealing with a company that he does not trust and that he believes has acted in bad faith thus far. I have no reason to think, nor does the Secretary of State, that the company might not continue to do so.

Secondly, the Secretary of State is making himself responsible for claims against the company that arise from specific instructions given to it by the Government. That is what the indemnity clause means. In those circumstances, there will be a further dispute about whether the relevant problem has arisen because of what the Government have told the company to do or because of something it has control over. As I said, the Secretary of State is enabling there to be two hands on the tiller, and that will store up headaches for the Government. I urge him, despite the fact that we have not had the chance to explore the matter today, to think very carefully about how the Government will protect themselves and the taxpayer from the oncoming complexities.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call Dame Harriett Baldwin for the official Opposition.