Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

This has been an interesting debate, because it has brought out the strategic love of nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation among Government Members. With our reasoned amendment we have tried to put out a different approach. We also heard clearly from Reform that it is in favour of nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation. This Bill will satisfy neither our camp nor their camp. With this Bill, we have a chaotic, unplanned, non-strategic journey that will end up burning through taxpayers’ money at every stage. We can see that the decisions that the Government have taken since they came to power have delivered the worst of all possible worlds for this crucial industry.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I promised Madam Deputy Speaker that, in the interests of time, I would not take any interventions. This Bill is an emergency intervention with mounting public costs that have no clear limits for the taxpayer. This legislation will certainly not put things on a secure footing.

We were told this time last year, when we were brought in on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands war, that nationalisation was not the plan. The Prime Minister went to China with the Secretary of State and failed to secure a deal for British Steel, so we have this Bill. It does not resolve any underlying issues. Instead, it just opens the door to an indefinite and infinite bill for the taxpayer, and that is not all. It has a sunset clause that, would the House believe it, can be extended indefinitely.

There are far too many unchecked powers in this Bill. It does not address, as the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee mentioned, that Britain has the highest energy prices in the developed world. We cannot have an industrial policy for steel unless there is an energy policy for industry. In addition to the Chair of the Select Committee, we had an interesting speech from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). She spoke about how we could turn this Bill into temporary, emergency legislation and about the path to returning British Steel to the private sector.

We also had powerful interventions from Opposition Members, including from my hon. Friends the Members for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti). They spoke up for the businesses in their constituencies that will be so badly affected by the inflationary 50% tariff on imported steel as of 1 June.

This afternoon is a chance for the Minister to answer some questions. Why were the Government unable to strike a deal with the Chinese owners? When exactly did the Government decide that nationalisation was the right path? Did they decide that before the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 was introduced? If so, why was the House not told that at the time? Why should the taxpayer be the one who foots this bill? How is this value for money for the taxpayer? Do we even know what the total cost to the taxpayer will be from these ongoing losses, the capital investment and the enormous liabilities? This Bill commits the taxpayer to ownership of an asset that loses hundreds of millions of pounds each year. What assessment has the Minister made of the chilling impact that the measures in this Bill will have on other inward investors into the United Kingdom, and what is his exit strategy, if he has one?

If the Government propose to nationalise a steel company on the basis that it meets the public interest test, can the Minister explain how the same asset could ever be returned to private ownership without contradicting their own public interest assessment that it is in the national interest? Or is the reality that once the threshold is crossed, the British taxpayer is locked into permanently underwriting a loss-making asset, with no timetable for it to return?

Why is there no requirement in this Bill for a proper impact or value-for-money assessment before the Secretary of State exercises the powers? Why have the Government not taken us up on our cheap power plan, which addresses one of the root causes of this sector’s difficulties? Can the Minister—I think I heard him say it from a sedentary position, but I would like to hear him say it again—urgently commit to look at the impact of the 50% steel tariffs on our steel manufacturing sector?

This House should not be required to sign a blank cheque. We cannot and will not support legislation that appears to be nationalisation in search of a rationale. I urge all colleagues to support our reasoned amendment.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

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

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

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

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

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

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

“includes (but is not limited to)”

and insert “means”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clause 2 stand part.

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

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

Clause 3 stand part.

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

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

Clauses 4 to 14 stand part.

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

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

Clauses 15 to 38 stand part.

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

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

Clauses 39 to 44 stand part.

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

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

Clauses 45 to 51 stand part.

New clause 2—Stakeholder Advisory Committee—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 3—Jobs and industrial transition strategy—

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

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

(a) protect skilled employment,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) an investment plan for the steel undertaking,

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

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

for the following 10 years.”

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

New clause 8—Contingent liabilities—

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

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

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

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

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

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

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

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

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

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

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

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

To correct the record, I have been calling for British Steel to be nationalised for seven years. I urged the previous Conservative Government not to sell British Steel to the Chinese, and if they had followed my excellent advice, we would not be in the pickle we are now in.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman has got his point on the record.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

It is interesting that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) once again outflanks Labour on socialism, but there we are. As a fellow west midlands MP, I am sure my right hon. Friend will be as concerned about the Bill as I am. My constituent, Mr Peter Hughes of EverEdge, which is a west midlands steel manufacturing company, has suggested that:

“While these measures are positioned as protecting primary steel production (such as TATA Steel), they are inadvertently undermining the much larger UK steel-processing sector.”

Does my right hon. Friend share his concern, in particular, the fact that:

“While raw material costs are rising, there are no equivalent restrictions on imported finished products”?

That could be seen—inadvertently, I accept—as a tax on manufacturing. It will certainly damage UK, Shropshire, and west midlands steel manufacturing.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

As a west midlands MP, I absolutely recognise that. In fact, I was with a constituent in Worcester on Friday, Mr Michael Outwin of Industrial & Tractor Ltd, who is going to have to pay a 50% tariff. I tried to table some amendments on the tariff regime, but unfortunately, they were not orderly, so I will limit myself to agreeing with my right hon. Friend. There are many types of steel that will be affected by the tariffs that do not seem to be made in the UK. I would like the Minister to clarify how he expects people to continue manufacturing from the steel that they have been importing for some time, once the tariffs are in place.

On the Opposition amendments, I am sure that everyone in the Committee agrees that the Bill as it stands exposes the taxpayer to unlimited liability for an unlimited length of time. The Bill expropriates businesses, and that will deter inward investment into our country. You do not have to take my word for it, Dame Caroline, as it is also in the Government’s impact assessment that one of the Bill’s potential impacts is that it chills the investment environment in this sector. That is why we have tabled the amendments the Committee is considering today.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

It is wonderful to see so many people interested in following this debate until 10 pm, which when our scrutiny of the Bill ends today. I will make just a few remarks, if I may. Despite the fact that we still have another day tomorrow, there were a few things in today’s debate that I have not heard sufficiently answered.

First, I pay tribute to the wise remarks from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). I encourage the Minister to take on board his points about the wide scope of the powers the Minister is taking in this legislation. My right hon. and learned Friend is a former Attorney General, so his remarks should be heeded with a great deal of seriousness. I reiterate the questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), who sought assurances that the blast furnaces will continue. I am not sure we heard that on the record. When the Minister next gets to the Dispatch Box in these days of debate, will he clarify his intentions as far as that is concerned?

Will the Minister provide clarity on the public interest test? Sensible remarks were made about the Regulatory Reform Committee and how the public interest test is too broadly defined. How can it ever be reversed once it has been invoked? I did not hear anything about limiting the contingent liabilities or the sunset clause, or the possible impact—mentioned in the impact report itself—on investor confidence in this country.

The Minister mentioned that he was willing to meet Members who have concerns about the steel tariffs, which are a separate issue. May I urge him, over the next 24 hours, to try to find some time in his diary so that they can raise specific examples with him?

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

On 21 May, the Business and Trade Committee met representatives of more than 20 steel fabrication companies who were deeply worried about the potential loss of hundreds, or thousands, of jobs. I second that, in respect of the urgency, because 1 July is around the corner, and this represents a major risk to the sector.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

Indeed; and, as we have heard, one of the suppliers is still in administration. I think that the Minister needs to rethink that deadline, and I hope he will find time in his diary, perhaps as early as tomorrow, to meet Members on both sides of the House to discuss the issue.

With no more ado, Ms Ghani, I will now attempt to press as many of the amendments as you will allow, and we will test the view of the Committee. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 21.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Sunset for exercise of principal transfer powers

Amendment proposed: 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 10, leave out subsections (3) to (5).—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

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

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Yesterday we discussed amendments in which we sought to rein in some of the unfettered powers that the Secretary of State is taking for himself in this legislation. Today’s amendments are about trying to rein in the unfettered liability and financial risk that this legislation puts on the taxpayer.

For example, amendment 20 would allow the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance if the National Audit Office has concluded that it would secure value for money for taxpayers. The amendment is obviously about making it clear that these powers are not a blank cheque, that they must be constrained, justified and used only when strictly necessary. We cannot have industrial improvisation when the British taxpayer is being asked to pick up the bill. It is not fair that hard-working taxpayers should be forced to pay for a potential failure of Ministers who think they are able to defy the realities of this market.

Amendment 22 would cap the amount of financial assistance that could be provided to a steel undertaking to £1 million per worker over a five-year period. It would also fix the employee count at the point that support begins, with “employee” being defined by section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The amendment would ensure that financial assistance is targeted, proportionate and provides value for money. If the Government believe in this intervention, as they clearly do, they should be willing to set limits on it, because without such a cap we are simply asking taxpayers to sign up to an unlimited liability.

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

Would the shadow Minister consider that putting a limit on this, when the financial support would only be provided in an emergency, when absolutely necessary, might be unwise and might lead us to having to recall Parliament yet again to take the necessary action?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I take issue with where the hon. Member is coming from on that, because by putting a sensible and finite limit on the amount per employee—and I will speak later to another amendment where we propose an overall limit—we are talking about the amount that has been set by the Chancellor through the spending review envelope. I do not think she really wants to say to the Committee that there should be completely unlimited budgets for this intervention. She herself would know that in any intervention we ought to go in with a wise idea about what is a reasonable spending limit.

Amendments 10 and 11 would increase the frequency with which Parliament is told about the amount that has been spent. Currently, as it is framed in the legislation, the Secretary of State must make a report to Parliament only every 12 months. We are suggesting in these amendments that reports about financial assistance should come every three months. We are talking about substantial and significant sums of public money, so we do not think that annual reporting would be sufficient. Quarterly reporting would ensure that Parliament can properly scrutinise how much money is being spent and how much is being done in closer to real time. It is essential that financial exposure is monitored closely and transparently. We do not want costs to escalate without people being able to notice them, and we want Ministers to remain accountable for public spending.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

My hon. Friend and I have both been Ministers; we know that a written ministerial statement is not a complicated thing to do every three or four months or whatever it is. I struggle to see what reason there could be not to give Parliament that transparency, for the simple sake of a piece of paper tabled once every three months, to ensure that taxpayers’ interests are protected.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know the Minister to be an extremely reasonable man, so I am sure he will agree with our amendment.

New clause 12 would place a firm cap on the total financial assistance that can be provided under the Bill, limiting it to £2.5 billion. As I am sure the hon. Member for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke (Pamela Nash) and other Members know, that is the limit that has been set for the steel strategy, so to reach that limit would mean that this intervention used up the entire amount allocated to the overall steel strategy. The new clause would set the limit up to a specific date in 2029.

As our explanatory statement makes clear, the purpose is simple: to limit the total financial exposure under the Bill. At the moment, the way the Bill is phrased means that it is a completely open-ended financial commitment. We think that a cap of this nature, which would ensure that Ministers had to prioritise their spending decisions rather than continue to inject funds without clear limits or outcomes, is a very sensible thing to do, and I urge everyone to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

The hon. Lady is making a very important and interesting point. In the steel industry over recent years, we have seen foreign companies buying British firms, then closing them down and leaving us without this capability. Would anything in new clause 9 prevent that from happening again? Having forced the Government to seek this buyer, is there anything in it to stop that buyer coming in and just closing the business down, meaning we lose that sovereign capability?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

We are looking at a Bill that the Government’s own impact assessment says might have a bit of a “chilling effect” on inward investment into the sector. We should all want to have inward investment into our economy. If someone who we regard as an excellent owner of this business should come in and make an offer that is attractive to the Government, I absolutely think the Government should be prepared to take that seriously. We do not want this to be a permanent state of affairs; we want it to be a journey to a thriving steel sector, which may well involve investors coming in from overseas.

[Mr Perkins]

I think the hon. Lady is in the same place as the Government, in that they want to see an excellent private sector partner at the earliest opportunity. The point I was trying to make is that she would be compelling the Government, in new clause 9, to seek this provider, and we have seen what has sometimes happened previously. Is she saying that, ultimately, we must do whatever the market decides, or is she basically supporting the Government’s position that this sovereign capability must remain in the UK and that we will work with other partners, but they will not be able to shut down British steelmaking as they have done in the past? Will there be any provisos in the new clause?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be conflating two issues. Last year, when the emergency legislation was introduced and Parliament was recalled on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands war, we did not stand in its way, but what we are asking for in the new clause is for Parliament to be kept informed. Let us agree that we all want to be kept informed about how the discussions are going and to find out what the Government are thinking about their exit plan. I made the point yesterday about the public interest test that it is very unclear whether, once the Secretary of State determines that it is in the public interest for this particular site to be owned by the taxpayer, there will ever be the potential for it to change to different state.

[Richard Tice]

The shadow Minister seems to be implying that, essentially, the business should be up for sale at any moment, almost at any price. It is incredibly destabilising for any business and its employees to suffer that uncertainty. What is required is a period of stability and investment, with a strong vision. She previously made comments about relying on auditors at the National Audit Office to make a strategic judgment about what is in the sovereign national interest. With the greatest of respect to auditors, it is experienced businesspeople—including the Minister—who understand the industry and who can make a much stronger judgment about what is required to retain primary steelmaking in this country, with that sovereign capability, than a bunch of auditors.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I actually think the hon. Gentleman is also agreeing with me on this point. I yield to no one in my admiration for the Minister and his expertise in this industry, but I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he too thinks that it will take business nous and investment into this business to bring it back to a state where it is making money. I also heard him say that he would therefore not object to hearing a report to Parliament every six months about the progress being made, so I look forward to him supporting this amendment in the Lobby later. We want our Ministers to actively work towards returning the business to private ownership, so we want to hear in Parliament about that ongoing progress and to be able to hold Ministers accountable and ask them questions on exactly that from time to time.

New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament every six months on the impact that nationalising steel undertakings has had on inward investment into the UK. I mentioned earlier that the Government’s own impact assessment worries about the potential for a “chilling effect” where Government are taking assets into public ownership in the way that this Bill allows. During its history, the UK has very much relied on being seen as a stable and predictable environment for inward investment. Expropriating and nationalising private businesses sets a precedent that could deter future investors, not just in the steel sector but across the wider economy. The new clause would ensure that Parliament received a regular, transparent analysis of how these interventions were affecting investor confidence and capital flows into the UK economy. We all hope that they would not be adversely affected, but we would want Parliament to know, and this new clause would ensure that any damage to our reputation was identified, understood and addressed early.

New clause 11 would prevent the Secretary of State from using the powers in the Bill to grant any selective advantages through state resources that could distort competition. It would ensure that nationalised steel undertakings were not unfairly advantaged over privately owned ones. Without this safeguard, there is a real risk that nationalised entities could receive preferential treatment, whether through subsidies, contracts or regulatory advantage, undermining fair competition within the domestic steel sector. If private firms believe they will be placed at a disadvantage compared with state-owned competitors, that risks deterring further investment in UK steel and related supply chains.

To conclude, these amendments are about bringing discipline, transparency and balance to a Bill that, as drafted, risks being too broad, too costly and too unconstrained. They would ensure that any intervention was properly assessed, carefully limited and consistently scrutinised, while protecting taxpayers, competition and investor confidence. If the Government are serious about supporting the steel industry, they should also be serious about accountability, value for money and a credible long-term plan, and these amendments are designed to deliver exactly that.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

It is a huge pleasure to speak in a debate on a Bill to nationalise British Steel, reversing one of the many mistakes of the Thatcher Government in the 1980s. I will speak against new clause 9, in the name of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), which would seek a private buyer for the nationalised British Steel company.

It is absolutely right that the Government are taking action to nationalise British Steel and set out a clear strategy to strengthen domestic production. While the strategy will safeguard our steelmaking capability, we must recognise the realities facing the downstream steel sector, which has been impacted by having to compete with the unfair terms of international markets and by being consistently starved of investment. Many such businesses, including those in my constituency, depend on imported grades and products that the UK simply does not produce and that are regularly used in our defence force, the automotive industry and construction.

I also oppose new clause 11, which would require the Government to create a level playing field between nationally owned and private sector businesses. While I support in principle the use of quotas and tariffs to back British Steel, we must avoid unintended consequences for the downstream industry. Sudden or poorly calibrated changes risk undermining downstream firms. These businesses are vital in constituencies such as mine, and supporting domestic production must not come at the expense of the wider steel ecosystem. I have discussed these matters extensively with the Minister on several occasions, and I look forward to welcoming him to Stourbridge in the coming weeks to meet a local steel company.

Downstream companies have expressed legitimate concerns about the present proposals. I sincerely thank the Minister for engaging with me and them on these issues, but can he confirm whether, in cases where particular steel grades are not currently produced domestically, including zero-carbon grades, the Government intend to allow exemptions from the proposed tariff and quota regime? The most recent stance is that tariffs and quotas will be reviewed in 12 months’ time, but I really fear that that will be too late for some businesses. Will he consider transitional arrangements at the very least to offer some stability to the downstream industry?

I will also speak against new clause 12, which would limit the financial assistance that can be provided under the Bill. While supporting British Steel, we cannot ignore the climate crisis. Our steel industry must be driven towards green, decarbonised production. On that point, the steel strategy states an ambition to transition to carbon-neutral steel production with electric arc furnaces when market conditions allow. It is worth noting that SSAB in my constituency, which is part-owned by the Swedish Government, imports zero-carbon steel from Sweden, where such steel—its only by-product is water—has been produced using electric arc furnaces since the 1980s.

Following the Government’s introduction of an investment debt rule in 2024, I encourage the Minister to consider what further flexibility there could be to use a similar investment method to enable the transition away from coal-based steel production. I hope that he will reflect on those points and continue to engage well with the industry. With the right decisions, I believe that we can secure a competitive, resilient and low-carbon steel sector for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I think it has been clear throughout these two days of debate that none of us in the House underestimates the importance of the steel industry to our national economy, to our industrial resilience, and to the communities whose livelihoods depend on it. We can all agree that steel matters, and that steel jobs matter. However, we also believe that the responsible stewardship of taxpayers’ money matters, and despite the eloquent way in which the Secretary of State expressed his views on the Bill, we see it much more as a chaotic and unplanned intervention. It is not the product of a clear steel industrial strategy, but the product of a failure to negotiate a better outcome. The negotiated outcome was a possibility; the Secretary of State even went to China to try to achieve it.

It is the failure to address the root causes of the industry’s difficulties that has brought us to where we are today. The Bill could also be described as the steel industry blank cheque Bill, because it fails to protect the public purse from potentially vast and open-ended liabilities. Nationalisation does not solve the underlying issue that is making domestic steel production unprofitable. The higher employment costs, higher energy costs, planning issues, carbon pricing, regulation and levies associated with the Government’s net zero policies continue to weigh heavily on the sector, and the Bill does nothing to resolve those pressures. Instead, it transfers them wholesale on to the taxpayer.

We should reflect on how we came to this point. Not long ago, the Government told the House that they did not want to nationalise British Steel—indeed, that was presented as a last resort to be avoided—and yet here we are, because the Government have failed to negotiate an alternative. We see once again that when this Government negotiate, it is the taxpayer who picks up the bill. Since the intervention began last year, on that historic Saturday, the cost has already run to more than £1.3 million every single day. That is a bill for the taxpayer that will only become larger with this legislation. The Bill exposes the public finances to further liabilities—contingent liabilities, not only substantial but, alarmingly, potentially unlimited in terms of both their scale and their duration. This is a Government getting a blank cheque forever.

[Richard Tice]

The root cause of why we have the Bill is that the previous Conservative Government sold this business to Jingye in 2019. Another root cause is net zero, which was introduced by the Conservative Government. Surely what the Conservative party should do is show some humility about why we are here and support the Bill.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

Surely what the hon. Member should do is welcome the fact that our party is under new and outstanding leadership. We believe that politicians should not be in the business of running commercial enterprises, but I can see that that is the political position of the Reform party. The risks of inefficiency, political interference and poor capital allocation are very well known.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is right to say that her party is under new leadership, but what did that leadership think about the decision to sell British Steel to Jingye? What did the leadership think of the net zero policies that the hon. Lady blames for the current situation? What did the Leader of the Opposition think of them when she was in government, and what did she do to oppose them?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

It is a bit rich to be lectured on support for party leadership from someone on the Labour Benches, so I will move on swiftly.

This Bill sets a precedent. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment says that expropriating assets in this way risks undermining the investor confidence that we need at this precise moment, when the UK needs to attract inward investment into strategic industries.

Throughout our Committee considerations, we have sought to improve this legislation to introduce better transparency for Parliament, to limit liability and to ensure proper parliamentary oversight. I thank my team, the team of Clerks, the whipping team and you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Throughout this process, our amendments were responsible safeguards; they were designed to protect the taxpayer and to impose discipline on the Government. Their rejection only reinforces our concern that Ministers are unwilling to confront the full implications of their own policy.

As we come to Third Reading, the choice is clear. This Bill risks enormous cost, offers insufficient answers, and sends troubling signals about the UK as a place to do business. We cannot support it in its current form. We will not vote against its Third Reading today, but for the sake of the taxpayer, the health of the steel sector and the credibility of industrial policy in this country, we cannot support it either.