Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Richard Tice

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his thoughtful question. The fundamental purpose of the Bill is to allow me, as Secretary of State, and this Government to take control of this situation. The reason why this is the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill, and not a Bill specific to British Steel, is, as he will know, that the latter would be a hybrid Bill, and introducing that would be a far more complex procedure. With the clock being run down, that was not an available option.

The Bill broadly replicates the situation that would apply if the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 had been triggered, but rather than seeking to meet the threshold to trigger that Act, I am seeking parliamentary permission—the consent of this House and the other place—to take control, which I think is a better way forward. I want to make it clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to the House that I want this to be a temporary position—I do not want these powers a minute longer than is necessary—but I need the powers to rectify and save the situation.

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

Given that the Secretary of State has inferred that the owner, Jingye, is not and has not acted in good faith, surely the right thing to do is to seize this great opportunity now, this weekend, and nationalise British Steel?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

A transfer of ownership to the state remains on the table. It may well, at this stage, given the behaviour of the company, be the likely option. However, our aspirations for British Steel remain a co-investment agreement with a private sector partner to secure a long-term transformation. The action I seek to take today is not a magic wand or a panacea. The state cannot fund the long-term transformation of British Steel, nor would it want to, but a failure to act today would prevent any more desirable outcome from even being considered, and that, again, is why we must act today.

Stellantis Luton

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Richard Tice

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Again, I recognise the situation facing my hon. Friend’s constituents, and there will be support on offer from the Government. He asks specifically about conversations with trade unions. I can confirm that I had several conversations just yesterday—for instance, with Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite—to ensure that what the Government are doing and what is being negotiated by the recognised union on behalf of the workforce are consistent. I recognise that for many people in the local area, the offer of relocation as part of the deal will not be attractive, as people have links, families and other situations. However, as the details emerge, I promise that I will keep the House and Members of Parliament updated, and work closely with them to ensure that it is everything it can be.

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

Let us be honest: these job losses are a direct result of net zero and the previous Government’s electric vehicle targets. Is the Secretary of State aware that car manufacturers across Europe are losing fortunes on EV production? They are trying to delay targets, and what we are witnessing is just the beginning of the slow, agonising, painful and tragic destruction of hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in the UK automotive industry.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I certainly agree that we should be honest, and the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the UK automotive sector is simply not correct. All I ask him to do is this: do not listen to the Government or even the Opposition, but go and speak to the industry and the firms involved. He should ask them about their investment plans, and find out why he is so out of touch with industry sentiment. Many of the problems in some other European countries have come from a lack of ambition on transition. Fundamentally, if we are selling 80% of what we make in the UK to other markets, there is no long-term market for internal combustion engines and we must recognise that. Again, the hon. Gentleman should not take it from the Government; he should take it from industry. I am afraid that on this one, as with our exchange on steel a few months ago, he is just out of touch with what consumers and business want.

Port Talbot Transition Project

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Richard Tice

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank my hon. Friend for all his support during our years in opposition, when we tackled many of these issues. He asks about procurement. Of course, anything that we do as a Government will be consistent with international trade rules and our commitment to open markets and multilateralism. There is a legitimate way in which social value can be considered in Government procurement. Given the value and quality of what we produce in the UK, I am very confident in procurement playing a bigger part in the future of the steel industry. On defence and the blast furnaces, he will know that neither Scunthorpe nor Port Talbot plays a direct role in some of the key Ministry of Defence contracts. Sheffield Forgemasters plays more of a role in that. There are more capacities and capabilities that we can look to as a country for opportunities in the future.

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

The truth is—and the country needs to know this—that the thousands of jobs and the loss of the blast furnaces announced today is because of both main parties’ obsession with net zero. The reality is that blast furnaces have been losing money because of high energy costs caused by very expensive renewable energy, but we are where we are. In the event that Tata does not build the electric arc furnaces that are being promised, will the Secretary of State guarantee the House that the taxpayers’ money will be returned to the taxpayer?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am afraid that the hon. Member is misinformed as to what this is about. The issue is that these sites lose approximately £1 million a day. They have done so for a long time, and the owners are fed up and want to know that there will be a plan for the future. The role of the Government is to make that future better than it would otherwise be were we not on the pitch delivering it. There are issues around the competitive cost of industrial electricity in the UK, but they are not the issues that he says.

On the guarantee that he seeks, he will have heard my statement. The contractual terms of the grant funding arrangement include that clawback capacity, not just for the overall project but even down to the number of jobs retained. Those are the kind of job guarantees that I want in the public-private relationship going forward.