British Steel

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments about the tireless work of our hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe on securing the future of British Steel. The Secretary of State went to the British Steel site in Scunthorpe just after the legislation was passed. I think it is fair to say that there was great relief after our intervention, but workers will also quite rightly be asking us, “What happens next and how will you secure the future of the site?” We are now completely focused on that.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Let me ask a question on behalf of my constituents who have sweated blood to keep the blast furnaces going. Unfortunately, as we know, electric arc technology cannot make virgin steel—only blast furnaces can do that. Are the Government 100% committed to maintaining our permanent ability to make virgin steel?

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have just come off the phone to Tom Smith, the trade union convenor at the blast furnaces, on behalf of my many constituents who work next door in Scunthorpe. My primary concern today is with the nearly 3,000 people who work in this plant. Let us be clear: we have been making the best quality steel in the world for 135 years in Lincolnshire, and we intend to go on doing it. We are not going to allow cheap, inferior Chinese steel to kill off our industry. The workers of Scunthorpe are breathing a sigh of relief.

We can be party political. I have to say that I thought the Chairman of the Business and Trade Committee made an excellent speech—he was positive and talked in strategic terms—but I do not know what the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), achieved by constantly attacking the Conservative party on what is a very complex issue. Of course we can be criticised because we sold this company to Jingye—yes, I agree—but how many voices on the Liberal Democrat Benches were speaking up at the time? Were they speaking up when Greg Clark, our then Business Secretary, paid the wages of the Scunthorpe steelworkers for many months? Were they speaking up when we saved Sheffield Forgemasters? This is a highly complex issue and we should be working together, so I support the Bill.

I know that we can be critical of the Government. Perhaps we should have acted sooner—my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) has been raising this point; I was sitting beside him at the end of March when he raised it and called for nationalisation of the industry—but we have now got to work together to save our steelmaking capacity.

We know, though, that this Bill is a bit of a sticking plaster. It is quite dangerous. Quite extensive powers are being taken by the Government, so there has to be a sunset clause. We are giving unprecedented powers to the Government. We can criticise them for not acting sooner, but this is a sticking plaster on a gaping wound.

Let us be honest: steelmaking in this country is under extreme stress. And why is that? Why are we loading the most expensive energy costs on to our own steel production? Why is Scunthorpe paying almost twice as much in energy costs as those in South Korea or in America? High energy prices make UK steel expensive to produce and uncompetitive versus that produced by our European counterparts. In 2024-25, the average price paid by UK steelmakers was £60 a kWh, compared with the German price of £50 and the French price of £43. We are making our own steel industry uncompetitive. We have to stop these green energy costs. We have to be realistic. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has now left, but we need to get real. We can take steel into public ownership now, but if we go on loading costs on our industry, we will have to come back month after month and year after year.

We will support the Bill, although we want a sunset clause. But we have to get real about China, too. Was it not obvious for weeks and, indeed, for months? This is a so-called private company, but there is no such thing as a private company in China. They are all under the cosh of the Government, under an autocratic regime. What do they care about the steelworkers in Scunthorpe? What do they care about our national interest? Never again, colleagues, must we allow such a strategic industry to fall into the hands of the Chinese, the Russians or anybody else.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether he was aware that the Chinese company that is now in possession of British Steel was sold it by a Conservative Government of which he was part?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course I am, because I just said that. I have just admitted that it was a mistake, but I ask everybody what they were saying at the time. Of course, there is silence. It is easy to be wise after the event, but I am worried about my steelworkers—I am worried about their future.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I give way to our former leader.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I want to make sure that my right hon. Friend puts the record straight: some of us on the Opposition Benches warned the then Government that it was wrong.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

There we are: some of us apparently warned the Government. I do not know how many.

We now know the true nature of our Chinese friends. We support the Bill. Let us make our steel industry really competitive again and let us make Great Britain great again.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

This is all very important. There has been some merriment about the pint, but in the novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four” by George Orwell, the hero goes into a pub, and somebody there laments the fact that the despotic regime has just abolished the pint and forced people to drink litres. The road to serfdom is paved by many steps such as this. By the way, when I was Minister for consumer affairs many years ago, we regularly banned things. We did not need this Bill.

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend makes the perfect point that this is precisely what the road to serfdom looks like, whether it is serfdom to an individual Minister at a moment in time or serfdom to an unelected Brussels bureaucratic elite. Why would we give up the powers of this House, the reason why we are sent here, and the ability to hold the Government to account?

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Scunthorpe neighbours my constituency, and many of my constituents who work there will be desperately worried today. This is a vital national interest—a crisis. For the past 150 years, wars have been won by states that can make virgin steel. Will the Government do anything—tariffs, or the Secretary of State going up to Scunthorpe now to negotiate directly with the company—to ensure that we keep our vital national interest going, which means blast furnaces?

[Sarah Jones]

As the right hon. Gentleman would expect, the Secretary of State is and has been talking to Jingye, as have I and officials. Those negotiations will continue. The site at Scunthorpe produces a lot of different types of steel, as he will know. It provides 95% of all steel used by Network Rail. It is incredibly important in that sense, and he is right to draw attention to that. There are many different ways of making steel. On the primary steel point, we are investigating the merits of investing in direct reduced iron, which is when hydrogen is used instead of the old blast furnaces. The reality is that the Scunthorpe blast furnaces are old infrastructure—decades old—that needs updating. We need to move to new technology, and that is what we are trying to do with Jingye.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

10. What steps he is taking to support the hospitality industry.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

We are creating a fairer business rates system, reducing alcohol duty on qualifying draught products, and our forthcoming small business strategy will set out our plan to further support small businesses on the high street and beyond. In addition, through the Hospitality Sector Council, we are addressing, with business, strategic issues related to high street regeneration, skills, sustainability and productivity, and we have recently saved the pint.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Obviously the Minister is working very hard, but he looks a bit tired, so may I offer him some Lincolnshire hospitality? Will he come and stay for a glorious weekend in one of our farm cottages, to enjoy our great skies and bracing air, and help our distressed farmers? Frankly, they need the income. The problem is that the Government have abolished the furnished holiday letting scheme, which was a tremendous encouragement for the countryside. I do not expect an answer now, but will he consider approaching his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to see if we can reinstate that in the Budget, to help our farmers and the countryside?

[Gareth Thomas]

Unusually for the Conservative party, the right hon. Gentleman has made an extremely generous offer. I am almost as tempted by that as by the offer from my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) to visit Doncaster. I am happy to look at the issue he raises and I will write to him with more details.

“Chapter 4A

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I have done throughout the passage of the Bill. I thank Members in all parts of the House for their valuable contributions throughout the passage of the Bill to date, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) for her assistance in taking the Bill through Committee, and the other members of the Public Bill Committee for providing substantial debate and scrutiny.

The Government’s plan to make work pay is a core part of our mission to grow the economy, raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all. It will tackle the low pay, poor working conditions and poor job security that have been holding our economy back. The Bill is the first phase of delivering our plan to make work pay, supporting employers, workers and unions by raising the minimum floor of employment rights, raising living standards across the country and levelling the playing field for those businesses that are engaged in good practice.

This is a landmark Bill that, once implemented, will represent the biggest upgrade in employment rights for a generation. It is therefore important that we get the detail right. The amendments being put forward by the Government directly demonstrate our commitment to full and comprehensive consultation on the detail of the plan to make work pay. On 4 March, we published five consultation responses relating to key areas of the Bill. That package represents the first phase of formal public consultations on how best to put our plans into practice. We have also undertaken extensive engagement with more than 150 stakeholder organisations, in addition to the formal consultations.

We have made great efforts to listen to the range of views from businesses, trade unions, representative organisations, civil society and others. The insights gained have been invaluable in informing the amendments to ensure the Bill works in practice, both for workers and for businesses of all sizes across the whole country. The amendments will strengthen the Bill, providing further detail and clarity on measures and ensuring such measures can be implemented in a straightforward way.

I turn to the detail of the amendments. The Government have tabled a range of amendments in relation to zero-hours measures. These amendments will help ensure that the zero-hours contract reforms work for workers and employers, supporting a culture where secure work and prosperous growth go hand in hand. Amendments in relation to clause 1, covering the right to guaranteed hours, will clarify requirements where a worker works for an employer under more than one contract at the same time; clarify that under a guaranteed hours offer, if it is accepted, work must be provided by the employer for the hours set out and that those hours must be worked by the worker; and enable a worker to take a case to an employment tribunal on the ground that an employer deliberately structured the worker’s hours or offered work in such a way as to make a reduced guaranteed hours offer or to avoid having to make an offer at all.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Given the urgent necessity to promote growth, surely the acid test of a Bill such as this is whether it will actually make it more attractive for entrepreneurs to create jobs. What is the answer?

[Justin Madders]

The answer is in the Department’s press release, which cites Simon Deakin, professor of law at the University of Cambridge, no less. He has said:

“The consensus on the economic impacts of labour laws is that, far from being harmful to growth, they contribute positively to productivity. Labour laws also help ensure that growth is more inclusive and that gains are distributed more widely across society.”

I am sure that the right hon. Member wants to see that happen.

Amendments in relation to the rights in clauses 2 and 3 to reasonable notice of shifts and payment for short-notice cancellation, curtailment and movement of shifts will ensure that the rights work appropriately for workers whose contracts specify the timing of at least some of their shifts; provide that a worker is entitled to a payment from their employer only for a shift cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice if they reasonably believed they would be needed to work the shift; and allow employers to disclose personal information about a worker in notices of exceptions, where appropriate and in accordance with data protection law, and ensure that the usual burden of proof applies where it is alleged that such a notice is untrue.

North Sea Energy

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

When I climb the hill behind my home in the Lincolnshire wolds, I can see, 20 miles away, a wonderful array of wind turbines in the North sea. We love it locally�we love it for our economy�but nothing in that precludes oil and gas exploration. If we in Lincolnshire are doing so much for green energy, why are we allowing the bread basket of England to be covered with solar farms? We have 10,000 acres of them around Gainsborough, and there is another application for 3,900 acres at North Clifton. Will the Minister and her boss please look at such mass applications in the round so that there is not overdevelopment in the break basket of England?

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman paints a lovely picture of walking up the hill in his constituency� I am sure we would all enjoy doing that. He makes an important point about solar. We need to make sure that we are taking people with us and doing the right things, which is what we are trying to do. We know that even if we pushed as far as we could on solar, it would still account for less than 1% of the overall land and the same proportion of our agricultural land�it is a small amount. He is right to want to make sure that his constituents have an environment that they like and enjoy. It is equally right to say that we will need infrastructure in our communities, and that people should see a benefit where we ask them to have infrastructure. There is the solar taskforce, which is looking at all these issues.

Employment Rights: Terminal Illness

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Lee Barron]

One of the things that has always got me is the number of personal stories people tell about what they have faced. We cannot remove those stories and those situations. I cannot imagine the distress, and I do not know if anybody else in here can. All I know is that I have met people who have gone through this experience, and that should never happen in our society. I have always said that the compassion and values that we hold as a society should not end at the front door of the workplace; they should be part and parcel of the workplace. That is why it is so important that we discuss issues like this.

Most people will never have to think about the implications of working with a terminal diagnosis. Those who receive a terminal diagnosis and their families should not have to worry about paying the bills or about their job, on top of everything else. The reality is that not all terminal illnesses are treated equally under the law. The prior part of employment, when people fall under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, is protected. It is when they get a terminal diagnosis, and when capability comes into it, that they are not protected. That is the part that needs to be protected; that is the loophole in the law.

I met a lady who worked for Nottinghamshire county council. The council signed up to the Dying to Work charter on a Thursday, although she had passed away on the Friday of the previous week. She had decided that she wanted to stay at work because that was where her friends—her social outlet—were; she did not want to sit at home, bouncing off the walls. She took that decision for herself, and her employer did the right thing by saying, “We’ll give you the freedom as far as that decision is concerned.”

Many people are proud of the work they do. They often wake up early to work long, hard days to provide for themselves and their loved ones. They greet and talk to their colleagues, who they see almost every day. They deserve dignity and respect, and they deserve our support.

Some terminally ill people may want to continue working as long as they can, finding peace and distraction in their professional lives. Others may decide to step away, prioritising their family and themselves. While the Government are rightly levelling up workers’ rights, we must seize the moment to ensure those with terminal illness are treated with fairness, compassion and the respect they deserve in the workplace. Protections like those enshrined in our Dying to Work charter should be universal, not optional. Legislation must be introduced to best protect vulnerable people in our workplaces. In the meantime, it is essential that we persuade as many employers as possible, including Government Departments, to sign up to the Dying to Work charter to protect as many workers as possible. Dignity at work is not a privilege; it is a right.

Some organisations do have death in service payments, but if a person is fired, they and their family are no longer entitled to any of those benefits. Every worker deserves to know that they will not be forced out of their job when they need it most. People at the end of their life should be able to decide whether they want to continue to work.

I was delighted to hear that the Government will be implementing the Dying to Work charter as best practice in Departments, but we need to go further. We need to review the Equality Act 2010 so that there are not gaps in rights for those who are terminally ill. We need to protect people’s employment when they are ill. We need to give the most vulnerable people in our society the right to choose and the right to dignity. We need to implement new legislation to protect these workers.

Protecting employment for those who are terminally ill means that they can focus on what truly matters, whether that is continuing to contribute to work or stepping away to spend their remaining time with their loved ones. Ultimately, that choice should be theirs and theirs alone, and if we need to we should protect that choice in law.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that if they wish to speak, they must bob.

Royal Mail Takeover

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that some of my early discussions in this role have been with Ofcom, and indeed with Royal Mail about its performance. There is a shared determination between not just the regulator and the Government but the trade union, the workers and the new owners to drive up that performance, because we can all clearly see that it is not good enough at the moment.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Thirty-one years ago, when I had the Minister’s job, I was trying to privatise the Post Office, but I was stopped by rebellious Tory Back Benchers—nothing new there. I was sacked a week later. So I warn him that this is quite a difficult issue.

What people were worried about was the universal service obligation—it costs so much more to deliver in rural Lincolnshire than in central London—so I think that what we are all worried about is that, as the Royal Mail moves ever further away from public ownership, this new private company will try to chip away at the universal service obligation, particularly in rural areas. Can the Minister reassure us that he is really on the case?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. Is he now the rebellious Back Bencher, I wonder? We all share those concerns about the universal service obligation. This deal is not contingent on the universal service obligation. We have had discussions on how we improve the current state of affairs, because it is clearly not good enough. I hope that his constituents will see an improvement in service as a result of this deal.

Fireworks: Sale and Use

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind all Members that they should bob if they wish to speak in the debate. Twenty-four Members have put in to speak, so I will have to impose a time limit of six minutes, because I am anxious that everyone should get in. I remind you all that the more interventions there are, the more likely it is that someone may not get to speak at all.