Employment Rights Bill

John Cooper Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

I will finish by drawing the House’s attention to a case that starkly proves the need for this legislation and that has not been public since March this year. Members and those watching our proceedings may have read the book “Careless People” by Sarah Wynn-Williams, a shocking exposé of the workplace culture at Meta, its practices in Myanmar and China, and how it has targeted teenagers in emotional distress to push consumer products on them in their darkest hours. Despite previous public statements that Meta no longer uses NDAs in cases of sexual harassment—which Sarah has repeatedly alleged—she is being pushed to financial ruin through the arbitration system in the UK, as Meta seeks to silence and punish her for speaking out. Meta has served a gagging order on Sarah and is attempting to fine her $50,000 for every breach of that order. She is on the verge of bankruptcy. I am sure that the whole House and the Government will stand with Sarah as we pass this legislation to ensure that whistleblowers and those with the moral courage to speak out are always protected.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Sadly, we are not here to relitigate this entire Bill, which is so wide in scope and impact, and yet so skimpy in detail, having been cobbled together for a headline under Labour’s “first 100 days” banner. I refer the House to Lords amendment 61, which without doubt will be dashed aside as Labour seeks to salvage something, anything, as a legacy for its deposed red queen, the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), whose Bill this very much remains.

Lords amendment 61 would reinstate the requirement for trade union members to opt in to contribute to the political fund. Incredibly, Labour Members, who bristle at commercial subscriptions that rely on consumer inertia, will likely vote down this sensible and proportionate change. The reasons why demonstrate the wider issue with the Bill. The left’s hive mind aside, the Bill is a love letter to the unions—a thank you for all the support.

Labour has been bought with union gold, with donations totalling almost £40 million since the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) took the helm of his party. It means that the Bill is payback for the unions, all the time masquerading as a fillip for the working class. We know how important that working-class concept is for the Labour party from watching the candidates for the vacant deputy leadership engage in a “prolier than thou” contest, with hairshirt-and-gravel shades of Monty Python’s “Four Yorkshiremen” sketch thrown in.

In reality, the Bill has little to do with actual working-class people, and the Labour party has no monopoly on them in their ranks. Instead, the Bill does rather more for what is sometimes called the “boutique left”—the trade union apparatchiks and their ilk. The Bill only makes sense if we see it through the skewed prism of every employer being a robber baron and every union organiser a saint. It does nothing for all those who will struggle to find a job in the first place, as its granting of day one rights will give companies—already facing big bills thanks to employer national insurance contribution rises—pause for thought. Other amendments fight a rearguard action with a sensible six-month qualification period. The Bill means that unions are going to party like it is 1979—but they should have a care. In ’79, restive unions triggered strike after strike, sounding the death knell for both their own unfettered power and for the Labour Government.

Lords amendment 62 addresses the threshold for strike action, meaning that 50% of eligible members would have to vote for action. Are the unions not better being sure of the complete backing of their members before lighting the picket-line braziers? Again, the unions should learn the lessons of the past. Next year marks a century since the general strike. Although often talked of in reverential tones by the left, the strike left the unions’ proud red banners in the dirt and the miners it was meant to support back in the underground galleries with worse pay conditions. Why? Because the strike alienated the public. Last week, the chat from the man forced on to the Clapham omnibus when London was crippled by transport strikes was less, “Up the workers!” than, “Right up the workers,” with their £65,000 base salaries and demands for a still shorter working week.

Business cannot afford the Bill unamended, as it will take an estimated £5 billion out at a time of belt tightening. The public cannot afford the Bill unamended, as it will facilitate more frequent and more damaging strikes, and it will make jobs harder to come by. Labour itself cannot afford the Bill unamended. Labour Members may think that, with scandal and crisis all around, they cannot sink any lower in the popularity stakes. Oh, they can, and the Bill is the ticking timebomb that could take them to their nadir faster than they imagine.

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my proud membership of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the GMB. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who has just popped out for some well-earned tea, for his hard work steering the Bill through the House. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my equally hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to her place; we both know that she has big shoes to fill.

Today, we finally arrive at the concluding stages of this historic Bill’s long journey through Parliament. It is a moment that has been many years in the making. For well over a decade, working people have been calling for the protections that this landmark piece of legislation will introduce. It is our duty to deliver them, and to deliver them in full. Last year, people voted for change. They are crying out for change, and this Bill delivers real, meaningful and positive change. It is therefore immensely frustrating, although sadly not surprising, to see the old coalition band get back together in the other place, to have one final go at obstructing this Bill through changes, like Lords amendment 1, which will be the focus of my remarks.

One of the defining aims of the Bill is to end exploitative short and zero-hours contracts. The right to a guaranteed-hours contract is at the heart of the new deal for working people because, as I said on Report, the rise of one-sided flexibility has been one of the most damaging labour market developments of the past 14 years. Such contracts leave workers—often the lowest paid—vulnerable to sudden changes in income, with weekly working hours varying unpredictably. It is an unstable, precarious life that many are forced into, and it is long past time that this exploitative practice was brought to an end.

Lords amendment 1, a throwback team effort from the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, seeks to replace the Bill’s right to a guaranteed-hours contract with a far weaker “right to request”. At just five words long, the amendment may seem minor, but it is anything but. As working people know from bitter experience, a right to request often means no right at all. Unfortunately, it is clear from the comments made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) that either Liberal Democrats do not understand or they are wilfully misrepresenting the amendment.

Lords amendment 1 creates a loophole, enabling unscrupulous employers to use pressure or coercion to deter employees from making requests. It also puts that crucial protection out of reach of those who simply are not aware of their rights in the first place. Far from delivering a new right, it reopens the door to workplace conflict, insecurity and exploitation, something of which I am sure the Liberal Democrats would not be proud. It is completely at odds with the spirit and purpose of the provision, and it must be rejected.

We must deliver greater security, stability and dignity to people in their working lives. The right to a guaranteed-hours contract, and the increased financial security that brings with it, is central to achieving that. It will be transformative for living standards, productivity and the economy. I urge colleagues from across the House not to undermine this essential provision and to reject Lords amendment 1. Working people are counting on all of us to do the right thing by them.

Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency

John Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

Liberty Pipes is separate and is not part of this situation at all. Of course, there will be concern in the wider group about the impact—I understand that—but at the moment, there is no crossover. Liberty Pipes will continue to do what it is doing and, I am sure, will continue to support the CCUS industry, which is great news for the workers there, and great news for us.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

It is good news that Liberty Steel Dalzell in Scotland is not involved in this immediate crisis, but it is not shroud-waving to suggest that the difficulties in the wider industry may mean that one day it will become involved. When the overdue steel strategy arrives, will it be a 360° look at steel production as a whole, in every corner of this country? Will the Minister help Scottish colleagues get to the bottom of the Scottish Government’s murky deal with this company, which means that they are on the hook for potentially as much as £565 million, a quite incredible sum, which is deeply troubling? The Scottish Government are using the devolution settlement to hide behind. What is going on there? Will she shine a torch of truth on that aspect of the steel industry?

[Sarah Jones]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, Dalzell is a separate legal entity, so it is not affected, but he is right to worry about the overall situation and its possible impact on the company. I will look into the point he raised about the Scottish Government and Liberty. We are looking at what the steel industry should look like across the whole of the UK; the devolved Governments are involved in the steel strategy, as well as the unions, the industry and others, so we are taking a holistic view of the whole UK to see what we can do with steel.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

This is an important issue. The Invest in Women taskforce is looking at some of the very real barriers that women entrepreneurs face, both in hospitality and more generally. Access to finance is one of the challenges that we have heard back about. A fund is being put together to help women entrepreneurs with that, but we need to do more, and our SMEs strategy will set out our plans in that regard.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

We have heard this morning that the review of the UK Internal Market Act 2020 somehow tramples on Holyrood, but in fact, the Government say:

“Devolved Governments will have greater flexibility to set rules”.

Is there not a danger that this invites the SNP Government to introduce change for the sake of change, and divergence for the sake of divergence, thus damaging trade right across the country?

[The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

Well, if I am simultaneously being criticised by the SNP and the Conservative party, I am pretty sure that we have got the balance right. The UK Internal Market Act seeks to strike the appropriate balance between giving devolved Governments flexibility on policy and avoiding unnecessary barriers for UK businesses. I believe we have got that balance exactly right.

Post Office Horizon Inquiry: Volume 1

John Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s work on the Business and Trade Committee and more generally in pushing the Government to do more on full and fair compensation. On the question of family members, Sir Wyn makes it clear in his report not only that offering a compensation scheme for family members is the right thing to do, but that there will be significant design challenges in how such a scheme is put together. We will work with the independent Horizon compensation advisory board, with claimants’ lawyers and with the campaign group Lost Chances on the design of such a scheme.

My hon. Friend briefly mentioned Capture, as did the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. We are in the process of working with a number of the victims of the Capture scandal and their legal representatives to design an effective compensation process for them. There are again some significant challenges around the availability of evidence, given that the use of the Capture software was before the introduction of the Horizon computer system, and so the amount of evidence available is significantly less. None the less, we are working at pace on the design of such a scheme.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I was aghast to find that the Capture system predates Horizon and goes as far back as 1992; so we are 33 years on. The Minister has touched on the difficulties of getting evidence from that time. Has he made any assessment of how many victims might be involved in this Capture scheme? It looks as though it might be a burgeoning scandal on the scale of the Horizon scheme.

[Gareth Thomas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on the Business and Trade Committee, too. He gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Lord Beamish, who campaigned for a considerable period of time to bring the House’s attention to the issue of Capture sub-postmasters. No definitive number exists of how many Post Office branches used Capture. There is a rough estimate that some 13.5% of all Post Office agency branches—roughly 18,000 between 1992 and 2000—used Capture before the Horizon system was rolled out in 1999. Given the lack of evidence, we are very much trying to learn the lessons from some of the Horizon compensation schemes in the way in which we design the Capture scheme. We will take forward 150 cases almost as a pilot process and will take stock at the end of that process to see what further work and further tweaks to the design of the scheme we need to make, so that we can deliver fair redress to all those victims of the Post office scandal, too.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank my right hon. Friend and the Select Committee for all their work in this area. He knows my view from the evidence that I have given. The significant increase in industrial energy prices under the previous Government is a significant issue for our competitiveness—and yes, that is something that we seek to address.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

When it comes to bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis and the jobs at risk there, there is not an elephant in the room—there is a Chinese dragon. The company is in competition not with commercial organisations from China, but with entities of the Chinese state. What representations will the Secretary of State make to the Prime Minister in an attempt to level a playing field that is currently about as flat as the Galloway hills?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I firmly agree with the hon. Gentleman that a level playing field is not just an economic necessity, but a matter of economic security and production in western economies like our own. Of course, if a company has a specific case to make, it should make the representation to the Trade Remedies Authority directly—I have that power, but it would usually come from industry. If the company has a specific case to make, the hon. Gentleman should encourage it to make that representation.

Business and the Economy

John Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

Our business community is ravaged; my hon. Friend is exactly right. We are plummeting to depths last reached only when the entire global economy was shut down due to an unknown pathogenic virus. If that is the bar the Government set themselves, I urge them to have a little bit more ambition and confidence in their ability to grow our economy.

No nation can spend its way to growth, or tax its way to success. I fear that we are about to see a case study showing exactly that this does not work. It has been tried before, and it did not work then. We cannot afford the ignorant short-sightedness of this Government. To achieve growth, we need a country in which everybody’s spark of ambition can find ignition. Not everyone needs to run a business, but for those who do, we want a country that values, cherishes and honours its wealth creators; where transforming a side hustle into a main hustle is straightforward; and where His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is transformed from a predator to a partner, and the tax system goes out of its way to reflect the risk of investing, and of running a business. We want our regulators to think carefully before they intervene, and not to pounce on every perceived failure as another reason to try to eliminate risk.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

May I give the House the news that ex-special forces soldiers, including the Minister for Veterans and People, have reached the top of Everest today? Congratulations to them. We also have a mountain to climb to create growth in this country. My hon. Friend mentioned HMRC; does it not reflect the Government? The Government’s attitude to business is that it is a dripping roast to be devoured and taxed to a standstill.

[Andrew Griffith]

So many businesses feel like that, even when HMRC is doing its legitimate job of trying to balance the books and raise money for the public purse. That is because of how it goes about that job, its one-sided nature, and the uncertainty that it inflicts on small businesses, whose biggest asset is their time, and whose greatest opportunity cost is the need to comply with myriad regulations and taxes.

We want a Government with a philosophy of trust in business, and a Government who celebrate personal responsibility and clear the path for innovation. That requires the courage to champion risk-takers and elevate enterprise above sectional interests. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, it is sad that investors and employers clearly do not have faith in this Government to deliver the contract between the state and those who seek to run a business. Instead of this Government opening up investment for wonderful British businesses around the world, top investors are fleeing the country and taking their wealth, creativity and entrepreneurship elsewhere. What could be sadder?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, it has been a privilege to traverse this land from Exeter to Belfast and from Glasgow to Cardiff to speak with people on the frontline of business. They are a doughty, resilient lot, doing amazing things; Britain’s got talent, but heads are going down. The barrage of red tape is taking a toll. Costs are up, and I must reference the speech from the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), which probably owed more to the boards of the Globe theatre further along the Thames than to this place. In his highly colourful speech, I was not quite sure whether he was blaming Mrs Thatcher or gas prices for high energy bills, but he should really look towards his own Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, because much of the increase in energy prices, which hammer businesses right across this country, comes from carbon taxes applied by this Government.

Critically, all this leads to expansion plans being shelved, as confidence slides. That means fewer jobs, especially for young people and those chasing that all-important first job. This Government’s boast is that they are putting money into working people’s pockets. Setting aside the questionable veracity of that claim, there is no doubt that if someone loses their job, or if they do not have a job in the first place, there is no extra money in their pocket.

What this Government are creating is a hostile environment for some sectors. Yes, there are millions of pounds—maybe billions—for steel, plenty for unionised train drivers and no-strings pay boosts for NHS staff, but what about agriculture, which is the key driver of the economy in rural Dumfries and Galloway, my constituency? Farmers and many associated businesses might just about survive Labour’s urban-centric indifference, but the active harm it is doing by taking steps such as the upping of inheritance tax and the driving down of agricultural property relief is a disaster.

The consequences of Labour’s avaricious increase in employer national insurance contributions are all too real. The Usual Place is a Dumfries charity that does amazing work helping young people with a host of mental and physical issues move into real jobs in catering. It is cutting back on those jobs because extra national insurance contributions put a bounty on each employee’s head, meaning jobs gone and life chances maimed. I hope the charity will celebrate its 10th anniversary next month, but Labour is doing nothing to help it get there.

At the other end of the spectrum, I spoke this week with a major firm whose payroll supports a five-figure number of employees. It has a strong social conscience and tries to tap into the huge cohort of economically inactive Britons and get them into the world of work, with all that that means for their pay packets but also for the intangibles such as the self-esteem and dignity that work affords. It calls itself a gateway employer, proud to be the first rung on the jobs ladder for thousands, but it is aghast at Labour’s anti-business approach. Its increased bill for extra national insurance contributions is eye-watering, and now it faces the thicket of rules and regulations that is the Employment Rights Bill—the Deputy Prime Minister’s love letter to the unions. The imposition of day one rights means that a taking a chance on employees with poor qualifications and a poor employment history, or perhaps ex-offenders, is much more risky for the firm. It knows—as do myriad other businesses, large and small—that it is less likely to recruit, while elements of the legislation are designed instead to swell the ranks of the increasingly restive trade unions.

We are through the looking-glass with this Government’s unbalanced approach to business. Black is now white.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Wrighting]

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) is talking about the feedback that we heard on the Business and Trade Committee. Does he recognise that businesses also fed back about the political uncertainty under the previous Government and how that made it very difficult to create an environment in which they could expand?

[John Cooper]

The hon. Lady is a doughty campaigner on the Business and Trade Committee. Unquestionably, mistakes were made. We know that and we have been through it before, but this Government have been in charge for 10 months now, and we see inflation rising and jobs slipping away.

As I said, we are through the looking glass: trade deals are bad, except when they are good. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last week criticised the Conservatives’ Australia and New Zealand deals for hitting farmers, while saying that his Government’s US deal protects farmers. The US deal put the welly boot into beef farmers, who face cheap imports here and US quotas over there that they just cannot fulfil.

[Dave Doogan]

I wonder what the hon. Member thinks about a couple of points. When is a trade deal not a trade deal? It seems that what has been agreed with the United States is a tariff deal and what has been agreed with the European Union is a modification to our pre-existing arrangement. What does he think the US trade deal will mean for beef farmers in his part of Scotland?

[John Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is right. These are not free trade agreements in the normal sense of the words: they are frittering around the edges, as he said himself. The difficulty for beef farmers in Dumfries and Galloway is that prices are rising, which is partly down to a drop in stock because of costs and things like that, so they are unable to fulfil this idea of sending beef to America. That is unlikely—it is more likely that we will see cheap American beef coming here.

Again, we go back through the looking glass. Up is down when the Employment Rights Bill makes strikes more likely, yet is touted as a boost to productivity. It is incredible. The minimum wage is up, which is no bad thing, but let us not pretend that that is Government money: hard-pressed businesses have to find that extra cash, again. In short, Labour is not working and, terrifyingly, neither are increasing numbers of our constituents.

Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries

John Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Lady is right to point out that there is a lot of misinformation in this space, and it is often used by the Conservatives to hide their own failings in government. Of course, the energy price hike that we had was partly because the previous Government had not delivered the security that we needed in our home-grown energy supply and storage. We are looking at all options to make sure that we have the right systems in place going forward. We already have the emissions trading scheme, and we are looking at where that goes in future years. She is right to point out that we need to look at all these things.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

The pretence is that Britain is somehow caught in a storm- tossed sea of international gas prices, which drives up energy costs, but when INEOS reports that it is paying £127 million a year in carbon taxes, rising to £2 billion by 2030, is it not the case that we are seeing the cascade of jobs losses because Labour has made decarbonisation deindustrialisation?

[Sarah Jones]

I think the hon. Gentleman knows that his own party are the experts on deindustrialisation, which we saw significantly across all parts of our manufacturing sector, including at INEOS. I regularly meet INEOS, as do the Secretary of State and other colleagues, and we are looking at what we can do to support the sector. It faces a lot of challenges, and we are looking to try to resolve them.

British Steel

John Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

Darlington and the Tees valley are excellent places in which to invest, so I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. In many parts of our country, steel is in the bones of our communities, but of course, this is not about looking back—it is about looking forward. In the future, we will need steel for not just clean energy, but for building the 1.5 million homes that we want to build, for Heathrow expansion and for our railways. We will need it across a whole range of sectors, and we know that demand is increasing, not reducing.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

The Minister talks about working at pace. If she wants to see what pace looks like, she might consider the Business and Trade Committee’s report on steel, which was turned around in rapid time—much faster than the snail’s pace review of steel, which has yet to emerge. Will it do so in the spring, or the summer? No one is quite sure. When that review finally emerges, will it address the elephant in the room, which is the ridiculous energy costs in this country? They have been driven up in part by gas, but also by carbon taxes, and by the renewable subsidies laid on by this Government.

[Sarah Jones]

The ridiculous energy costs that the hon. Gentleman refers to are a result of 14 years of Conservative Government—we need to be really clear about that. His point about the steel strategy, which has already been made, is reasonable. Of course, Members are really keen for us to bring that strategy forward as soon as possible, but I repeat what I have said: we are looking at spending up to £2.5 billion, and there is absolutely no way that I, the Secretary of State, the Chancellor or the Prime Minister could come to this House and say, “Here is a steel strategy that we have written on the back of a fag packet after a couple of weeks thinking about it.” We need to do this right, and that is what we are doing.

Horizon Redress and Post Office Update

John Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I know that my hon. Friend has always been a great champion of Salford. Like other Members, she has made it very clear to me how significant the post office is in her community. The vast majority of post office branches across the country are already franchised. Both main and local franchises are often open longer than directly managed branches.

My hon. Friend asked what guarantees there are. As I have set out, we have made it clear to the Post Office that we want every directly managed branch to ensure that there is a main franchised operation in those communities. I recognise that there will be concern while that change takes place, but if she or any other Members have concerns about aspects of that transition as it moves forward in their constituencies, I will obviously be very happy to meet them to discuss those.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I should remind the House that in March we recommended that the Government should listen harder to our recommendations. I am glad that that seems to have been taken on board, but I am slightly concerned that a lot of back patting seems to be going on, particularly about Fujitsu. Does the Minister not agree with me that he should be telling Fujitsu what to do, not asking it? This Government seem overly deferential to lawyers. He is in charge of this. Can he not get the pace moving, because lawyers are getting their money—their fees—but postmasters are not getting their money at the rate they should?

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to want progress on Fujitsu, which is one of the reasons why I have made it clear to Fujitsu that an interim payment would be a very welcome and significant step forward. We have said that we think it is important that we hear the view of Sir Wyn Williams, who has been looking in detail at the responsibility of both Fujitsu and senior leaders in the Post Office during this scandal. We need to recognise that there is a process, but we are absolutely clear about our responsibility to move the negotiations forward.

Scunthorpe Steelworks

John Cooper Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I would be happy to come to my hon. Friend’s constituency to have a look at and to talk to some of the people who work in the steel business. Huge numbers of organisations and businesses across the country rely on, use, and produce things from steel, and we need to ensure that we factor them into the conversations we are having. We are looking at the supply chains and how we boost industry more widely through our industrial strategy. We are looking at all the things—whether it is skills, R&D or access to finance—that businesses of all sectors have told us they need. Whether it is through the industrial strategy or the plan for steel, we are trying to ensure that we have a robust industry in this country so that jobs are not offshored and we have the security of knowing that we are producing the things that we need here in the UK.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Between 1997 and 2010, about 36,000 jobs were lost in steelmaking, or about half the workforce—that was under Labour, of course. I am concerned to hear talk today about nationalisation, and I say that with due deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers); the old joke is that if we want to stop crime paying, we should nationalise it. Given that this Government could not run a bath, never mind the steel industry, would a better idea not be to support the industry with, as I have mentioned before, a golden share to give us some say over what happens? Again, is the truth not that the dogmatic pursuit of net zero is driving up energy bills in this country to a level that is simply not sustainable for industry?

[Sarah Jones]

I will repeat what I have said: we are looking at all the options on the table; we are talking to British Steel about the right outcome; and we will do what is right for our country and our industry. On energy prices, the hon. Member is right to raise the high costs of energy. The supercharger comes into effect this month, and British Steel will get support from that, as will other high-end energy-intensive industries. But he is right to point to that issue and we are looking at it.