Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

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

[Judith Cummins in the Chair]

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

Under the Order of the House of 21 May, we shall now move to the Committee of the whole House. I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.

Clause 52

Compensation scheme regulations

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 7, page 34, line 15, at end insert—

“(5A) Compensation scheme regulations must include provision which specifies that payment of compensation may be made until any written estimate under section 54 (4A) is laid before Parliament.”

This amendment works with Amendments 8 and 9 so as to require regulations to specify that payment of compensation cannot be made until the Secretary of State has published a written estimate of the environmental liabilities of the steel undertaking, provided to them by the independent valuer.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 52 and 53 stand part.

Amendment 8, clause 54, page 35, line 25, leave out “may—

(a) require or permit”

and insert—

“must—

(a) require”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 9, page 35, line 34, at end insert—

“(4A) The regulations must—

(a) provide that the independent valuer prepares and submits to the Secretary of State a written estimate of the environmental liabilities of that undertaking, including but not limited to—

(i) contamination of land, water or air attributable to the undertaking’s operations;

(ii) compliance with environmental obligations imposed by or under any enactment; and

(iii) remediation or restoration costs that are contingent or prospective;

(b) provide that the Secretary of State must publish and lay any written estimate provided under this subsection before Parliament.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 6, page 35, line 40, at end insert—

“(c) the anticipated effects of—

(i) external tariffs on UK industry; and

(ii) the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, as set out by Part 5 of the Finance Act 2026 on the value of a steel undertaking.”

This amendment would require consideration of external tariffs and the implementation of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, when conducting a valuation of the Steel undertaking.

Clauses 54 to 57 stand part.

Amendment 20, clause 58, page 39, line 7, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State may only provide financial assistance under this section if they are satisfied that financial assistance will secure value for money.”

This amendment would only allow the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance if the NAO had concluded that it would secure value for money for taxpayers.

Amendment 22, page 39, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State may not in any five-year period provide financial assistance under this section of an amount that exceeds £1 million per employee of the steel undertaking.

(1B) The number of employees of a steel undertaking for the purpose of subsection (1A) is the number of persons employed on the date the financial assistance was first provided.

(1C) ‘employee’ has the meaning given by section 230 (Employees, workers etc.) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.”

This amendment would cap the amount of financial assistance that could be provided to a steel undertaking to £1 million per worker over 5 years.

Amendment 24, page 39, line 24, at end insert—

“(4A) Financial assistance under this section may not include funding provided by the National Wealth Fund.”

This amendment prevents money from the National Wealth Fund being used to provide financial assistance under this Act.

Clause 58 stand part.

Amendment 4, clause 59, page 39, line 29, insert at end “and,

(b) compensation paid under any compensation scheme regulations made under section 52.”

This amendment requires the Government to report on the compensation paid under any compensation scheme regulations made under section 52.

Amendment 10, page 39, line 31, leave out “12” and insert “3”

This amendment together with Amendment 14 would increase the frequency with which the Secretary of State must make reports about financial assistance to every three months.

Amendment 11, page 39, line 33, leave out “12” and insert “3”

See explanatory note for Amendment 13.

Clauses 59 and 60 stand part.

New clause 6—Parliamentary scrutiny of Financial Assistance—

“(1) Before providing any assistance under section 58, the Secretary of State must lay a proposal for providing the financial assistance (‘the proposal’) before Parliament.

(2) No financial assistance may be provided under section 58 unless the proposal has been laid before Parliament.

(3) If, within the period of 90 days after the proposal has been laid, a select committee of the House of Commons makes any recommendations with regard to the proposal, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to the recommendations before providing any financial assistance.

(4) The proposal must include—

(a) details of the nature and amount of the financial assistance,

(b) the intended beneficiary or beneficiaries of the financial assistance,

(c) the expected purpose and effect of the financial assistance,

(d) any conditions, repayment arrangements, guarantees, indemnities or other liabilities attaching to the financial assistance, and

(e) any other information the Secretary of State believes it is necessary for the Committee to have in order to complete its consideration of the proposal, subject to the restrictions in subsection (3).

(5) The proposal may not include information which, if it were made public, may damage—

(a) national security;

(b) fiduciary duties; or

(c) commercially sensitive interests.”

This new clause prevents financial assistance being provided until 90 days after information about the package of financial assistance being made available to a Select Committee of the House of Commons for its consideration.

New clause 12—Financial assistance: limit—

“Financial assistance of a total value of no more than £2.5 billion may be provided under section 58 of this Act before 15 August 2029.”

This new clause would limit the financial assistance that can be provided under the Act.

New clause 13—Financial assistance: England and Wales—

“Where financial assistance is provided to steel undertakings in England under section 58 of this Act, an equivalent to the total amount of financial assistance provided to steel undertakings in England must be made available to steel undertakings in Wales.”

This new clause requires equivalent funding to be provided to steel undertakings in Wales compared to those in England.

Clauses 61 to 64 stand part.

New clause 7—Impact assessments—

“Before exercising any power under this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment on the proposed exercise of that power.”

This new clause would require an impact assessment to be published before the Secretary of State exercised any of the powers under the Act.

New clause 4—Limit on expenditure on financial assistance and compensation—

“(1) The total amount of compensation paid by the Secretary of State under Part 2 and financial assistance paid under section 58 is limited to—

(a) £500m, or

(b) an amount so authorised by resolution of the House of Commons, whichever is higher.”

This new clause prevents the Secretary of State from paying more than £500m in financial assistance and compensation under the Act, unless the House of Commons passes a resolution authorising them to do so.

New clause 9—Duty to try to find a private sector purchaser for any nationalised steel undertaking—

“Where a steel undertaking has been subject to the principal transfer power under this Act, the Secretary of State must—

(a) make all practicable efforts to find a private sector purchaser for the steel undertaking; and

(b) lay a report before Parliament every six months which sets out progress made towards finding a private sector purchaser for the steel undertaking.”

This new clause would put a duty on the Secretary of State to seek a private sector buyer for any steel company that has been nationalised, and report to Parliament on progress made every six months.

New clause 10—Report on the impact any nationalisation of steel undertakings has had on inward investment to the United Kingdom—

“Within six months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent six months, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament which sets out the impact that nationalisation of any steel undertaking under this Act has had on inward investment to the United Kingdom.”

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact any nationalisation of steel undertakings has had on inward investment to the United Kingdom.

New clause 11—State aids—

“The Secretary of State must not exercise the powers in this Act so as to grant any advantage through state resources on a selective basis to any organisations that could potentially distort competition and trade, including any advantage that might be granted to steel undertakings subject to a transfer power over comparable privately-owned steel undertakings in the United Kingdom.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to maintain a level playing-field between nationally owned and privately owned steel businesses.

[Sarah Olney]

We heard throughout yesterday’s debate from Members across the Committee about the importance of steelmaking as a vital strategic sector in the UK, and no doubt we will hear about it again today. We rely on the sector for essential parts of our national infrastructure, for transport and for advanced manufacturing. Steelmaking and the industry more broadly create thousands of good jobs across the country, helping to power our economy and boost our local communities, and in increasingly uncertain times, it is essential to support our defence industry.

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches therefore broadly welcome this legislation as a temporary, emergency and targeted step aimed specifically at turning around British Steel before it can be returned to the private sector, and we note that it is in that spirit that British steel producers also support these measures. We need to see more ambition and clarity in the delivery of the steel strategy—for example, when it comes to boosting domestic production to meet 50% of domestic steel demand, further incentivising the use of British-made steel in the private sector and managing the transition to electric arc furnaces.

I wish to speak in favour of amendments 7, 8 and 9. These would strengthen the treatment of environmental liabilities in relation to the steel undertaking and ensure that they were explicitly identified and accounted for before compensation payments were made. They highlight the principle that the true financial position of an undertaking cannot be properly understood without a clear and transparent assessment of its environmental liabilities. By accepting the amendments, the legislation could work as a package to ensure that environmental liabilities were not only considered but formally assessed, published and laid before Parliament.

In particular, the amendments would require an independent valuer to prepare a written estimate of the environmental liabilities associated with the undertaking, including contamination of land, water or air; compliance with environmental obligations; and current and future remediation or restoration costs. That would ensure that the full environmental cost of the undertaking’s operation was properly captured, including liabilities that might not yet have crystallised but were none the less foreseeable. Crucially, the amendments would link the process to the timing of compensation payments, specifying that compensation could not be paid until the environmental liabilities estimate had been produced and presented, and ensuring that taxpayers were not left to pick up the bill for any environmental damage caused by the company’s previous owners.

Furthermore, I wish to speak in favour of amendment 6. This amendment would require that when carrying out a valuation of the steel undertaking, consideration was explicitly given to the impact of external tariffs and the carbon border adjustment mechanism. It reflects the reality that the value of a steel business is not determined solely by its internal operations and that it is also significantly influenced by international trade conditions and environmental policy frameworks.

The previous Conservative Government oversaw a string of near collapses and interim last-minute packages. They scrapped the industrial strategy, which is so vital to our manufacturers, and they erected new trade barriers, making it harder for our steel producers to do business with their biggest export market across the channel. This legislation should be much more ambitious on an improved agreement with the EU for steel exports. Given the international nature of the steel market and the growing importance of carbon-related border adjustments, it is reasonable that these factors should be explicitly included in valuation methodologies. Amendment 6 would help to ensure that any valuation was not artificially insulated from key external drivers of cost and competitiveness. It would also provide a more accurate basis for decision making.

[Sarah Olney]

That is not the specific purpose of the amendment, but I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point. I know that the Minister has heard about this issue on a number of occasions, throughout the debates on this Bill and during the urgent question last week in the Chamber. I would like to take this opportunity to reinforce the point that has been made on multiple occasions across this House about the tariff regime and the changes that are coming in. I have spoken to a number of manufacturers about the very real concerns right across the sector about the changes in tariffs. I know that the Minister is focused on that, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving us another opportunity to raise concerns with the Minister, which I know he has heard.

Amendment 5 would extend the Government’s reporting obligations to include progress on negotiations with the European Union—

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Order. I remind the hon. Lady that amendment 5 has not been selected and so would be out of scope for this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call Toby Perkins.

[Mr Perkins]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair—that was a pleasant surprise.

I do not intend to detain the Committee for long, but I will take this opportunity to welcome the Government’s steps in the Bill, which build on the steps that we took with the emergency legislation that ensured a future for Scunthorpe. We all recognise that steelmaking is part of our national security. Without steel capability, we are simply unable to be truly independent in military terms or in many other terms. The commitment of the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to ensuring a future for British Steel is not only sensible and ambitious, but a welcome change from the policies that were pursued by previous Prime Ministers over too many years to mention.

At a time when there has been such huge pressure on the public finances, it is tremendously welcome that the Government are stepping forward with £2.5 billion to boost the steel industry, along with the important measures relating to those with expertise in the industry, which is a complicated sector. It is therefore very welcome that the Government’s efforts in these areas are being led by those with such expertise in the sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who clearly speaks with great knowledge on these subjects. He makes an important point, once again raising the importance of this whole area of legislation to the defence industry and to sovereign capability. The reality is that our defence industry is crucial economically, for jobs and for our national protection, but also for exports. We should absolutely welcome those British manufacturers making things here and selling them across the world. If we inadvertently cause them to be less competitive, we will rue the day, so we need to tread carefully. But his point about ore and those amendments is well made.

I will sit down now, but I tell the Government that they have my absolute support on this approach to the nationalisation of British Steel, and I ask the Minister to respond to the points I have made.

[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.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

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

20:40

Division 14

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 145

Noes: 251

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

It has been drawn to my attention by the Tellers that the numbers were incorrectly reported for the Division on the Question that amendment 12 be made. The correct numbers were 81 for the Ayes and 266 for the Noes. I will direct that the numbers be corrected in the Journal.

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair (Programme Order, 21 May).

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

Humble Address: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government’s return to the Humble Address on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. I will speak briefly, because I am conscious of the time.

I have today laid before the House documents that the Government have identified that the House requested in its 24 February 2026 Humble Address, covering the creation of the role of special representative for trade and investment in 2001, the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and the advice of officials and Ministers.s This has not been straightforward. Departments have changed in the intervening years and most documentation was then paper-based. In addition, we have had to be careful about not compromising the police investigation. I am glad to say that we have published 11 documents today, including: the formal appointment proposal, evidence that Ministers were content with the proposal, internal communications, and media and press briefings. The documents speak for themselves, and all hon. Members can read them as they are available in the Vote Office.

I want to assure the House that we have proceeded on the basis of maximum transparency and have only redacted material that bears no relevance to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, such as travel proposals for other members of the royal family or content that would otherwise prejudice international relations. I reiterate that the Government are fully co-operating with Thames Valley police in their investigation into potential misconduct in public office. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I hear the right hon. Member’s chuntering, in his regular application process to be made a trade envoy. I am still considering his proposal.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

The reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. A lot of Members with a direct constituency interest rightly want to put their remarks on the record. There will be an immediate six-minute time limit for Back-Bench speeches, but we will very swiftly move to three minutes to enable as many Members as possible to speak on this important topic. I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I am afraid that the hon. Member ought to look again at the calendar, because I was not only not in Government but not in this House—I was getting on in business trying to help grow the British economy. When the same issue arose in Port Talbot, it was the previous Government—indeed, my right hon. Friend who is now the Leader of the Opposition—who took action and were willing to back the private sector owner to secure the future of steelmaking in Wales. That was what we did in Government.

We are talking about the issue of tariffs because it is intrinsically related to the Government and the taxpayer taking ownership of one participant in a complex industry supply chain. I know that on the Government Benches, some of the truths that we share today may not be immediately popular, but past Governments failed because they were happy to do what was popular in the moment, without looking at the long-term consequences. The truth is that we should not be nationalising British Steel, and certainly not with the Bill in this form—my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East made the point about the sweeping nature of the clauses, whatever we think about the Secretary of State’s intentions.

We have demonstrated in the past, and we will again, that there are other options, such as partnering with the private sector and negotiating a better deal. The Conservatives would fix the cause, not the symptoms; we would save steelmaking in this country not through state quick fixes, but by fixing the state itself. We would not pit industries against each other, as Labour is now doing, and we would not sit idly by for a rerun of the 1970s horror show that Labour made Britain sit through the last time around.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With a six-minute time limit, I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I welcome the King’s Speech last week. In a volatile world, the question of domestic economic resilience is paramount. Whether it is the conflict in the middle east driving energy price instability, supply chain disruption or a rise in global uncertainty, Britain cannot afford inaction or simply to hope that global shocks will be contained or pass us by. We need an active concordat between Government, business and communities to strengthen our resilience and ensure our prosperity.

The King’s Speech set out an agenda focused on growth, investment, infrastructure, innovation and economic security. Crucially, it recognised that growth must exist not just in Whitehall spreadsheets or the boardrooms of financial institutions in the City; it must be felt in communities like Coatbridge and Bellshill. For decades, businesses—particularly small and medium-sized ones—have felt that the Government work around them rather than with them, so one of the most important measures announced in the King’s Speech was the small business protections Bill on late payments.

For too long, businesses have been pushed to the brink because they completed work and paid wages and suppliers, but waited months to be paid themselves. According to the Small Business Commissioner, late payments cost the UK economy £11 billion annually, with small business owners spending around 86 hours each year chasing unpaid invoices. That is time that is not spent innovating, hiring, exporting or growing. The proposed reforms include stronger powers for the Small Business Commissioner, mandatory interest on late payments and maximum payment terms, and they all represent a positive step.

I also welcome the regulating for growth Bill and the plans being put in place to place a greater emphasis on innovation. That is particularly important for emerging sectors like AI, clean energy, advanced manufacturing and defence technologies. I certainly hope that the Government look to prioritise some of the R&D on clinical research for motor neurone disease—an issue that is very close to my heart.

Innovation matters greatly for post-industrial communities in North Lanarkshire, Scotland’s fastest-growing economy. We are already seeing there the potential of advanced industry and digital infrastructure, with Scotland’s first AI growth zone and companies like Cairnhill Structures in my constituency, which is rebuilding bridges in Ukraine that have been destroyed by Russian forces.

I welcome the support for clean energy investment and for securing domestic steel production, which reflects an understanding that modern economies cannot grow on weak foundations. Recent global events have exposed the dangers of over-reliance on volatile international energy markets, so expanding home-grown clean energy and supporting a new generation of nuclear power is not just sound environmental policy but sound economic security policy. Certainly in Scotland, the SNP should end its decades-long dogmatic opposition to new nuclear.

Growth is strongest and most sustainable when working people are secure, skilled and fairly paid. We have made great progress through the Employment Rights Act and the uplifts to the national and living wages, but we must go further, particularly on apprenticeships. It is a national scandal that apprenticeship starts for advanced manufacturing dropped by 40% under the previous Tory Government and by 30% in Scotland under the SNP. We have to redouble our efforts to end the erosion we have seen under Opposition parties, but we also have a moral obligation to support the 1 million young people who are not in education, training or work to reach their potential. That will be a critical act for transforming our economy.

This King’s Speech recognises that economic security, national resilience and living standards are deeply intertwined. It recognises that Governments have a responsibility not merely to observe the economy but to help to shape the conditions for growth, innovation and long-term prosperity. In a world that is becoming more uncertain by the day, that approach is not ideological—it is necessary.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Olly Glover, who I believe was standing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

The point that the hon. Gentleman makes assumes that investing in green technology and social housing will not give a decent return, but the evidence is to the contrary, so I think that he is wrong in his premise.

Workers’ money should be invested in things such as green technology and social housing because they are stable, reliable sectors that build a better future for the very people whose contributions fund them. I know that Ministers are looking to the AI revolution as another way to grow our economy. There is little doubt that AI is a transformational technology that will bring with it many benefits to our society, but in order to fully realise those benefits, it is important to put in place safeguards to ensure that the technologies are developed and deployed appropriately and in the interests of society as a whole—rather than simply being a vehicle by which large tech companies make even bigger profits. That is why we need the democratic shaping of technology. We need to work with innovators, workers and unions to steer UK research towards automation that creates or improves jobs.

Without robust regulation, we risk steering society towards an unpredictable and turbulent future that does not work for the public. I have already raised with the Government the prospect of considering some kind of employment levy on companies that replace large-scale workforces with AI, and I hope that they will give that some consideration. That links to my belief that we need to rebalance our entire taxation system. Capital gains could be taxed at the same marginal rate as wages. There are also windfall taxes that could be levied on banks, utilities and other corporations that are making excessive profits. We could also have a wealth tax on those with assets of more than £10 million.

Our economy needs to grow, because all the evidence shows that the more unequal a society is, the higher its risk of becoming dysfunctional. As income differences widen, people are less likely to trust one another, and we see a breakdown in social trust between our communities. Getting the right kind of growth in our economy is therefore essential—not just to make people better off but to create a more equal society that works in the interests of every one of us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

UK Steel Strategy

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)]

With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s steel strategy. I begin by declaring my membership of Community and GMB trade unions.

Resilient economic growth is the main driver of social justice, and steel is essential to both. Steel underpins the key growth-driving sectors in our modern industrial strategy. It has strengthened and sustained communities in England, Scotland and Wales. The future of steel in Britain is about ensuring the future strength and security of our national economy.

We honour steel’s proud industrial past, but we do not live in it. We are ambitious and excited for Britain’s future steel sector. Steel is essential for advanced manufacturing, clean energy, construction, defence and digital technologies. Steel is vital for sustaining thousands of lives and livelihoods, with good jobs, apprenticeships and opportunities. Steel is central to communities in Port Talbot, Motherwell, Scunthorpe, Sheffield and Teesside.

This House will be acutely aware that Britain’s steel sector has experienced decades of decline, from the failures of Thatcherism that closed Consett and Ravenscraig and shrank Corby to the damage done by the Tories to Redcar and Port Talbot. Steel manufacturing in Britain serves as the starkest possible monument to the failure of Thatcherite monetarism and its record of industrial vandalism. By contrast, Labour has an activist industrial strategy that determinedly targets key industries, technologies and strategically important sectors for economic development, national security and resilience.

In the last five decades, steel industry employment in Britain has declined by 90%, from more than 300,000 jobs in 1970 to less than 30,000 today. We are closing that decades-long chapter of deliberate de-industrialisation and committing anew to strengthening and sustaining Britain as a steelmaking nation. High operating costs and global overcapacity have made it much harder for British steel companies to compete. Manufacturers have looked to cheap, imported steel to keep costs down. As a result, investment have tapered off, capabilities have reduced and communities have been let down. Crude steel production has declined by more than 50% in the last decade.

Faced with these challenges, previous Governments failed to present a long-term vision for steel in Britain. They were reactive, not proactive. They intervened to support specific companies at specific times, but failed to improve the general conditions for the industry as a whole. They lacked the necessary boldness, creativity and urgency. This Government will not make that same mistake. Far from believing that steel decline is inevitable, we embrace a future for British steel manufacturing as a staple of sustainable, resilient economic growth and our national security. While the industry still faces challenges today, we will do everything we can to help it adapt, grow and succeed into the future, and our actions on steel will be driven by what is best for our national interest.

Our steel strategy sets out a series of actions to reverse the failures of the past: to build a strong and resilient steel sector, backed up with £2.5 billion of Government investment. That is on top of the £500 million that we have pledged for the steelworks at Port Talbot. Our ambition is for domestic production to meet up to half of Britain’s domestic demand. To support that effort, we will introduce a new trade measure to replace the existing safeguard. From 1 July, overall quotas for imported steel will be reduced by 60% compared with the safeguard. All steel coming into the UK above those levels will be subject to a 50% tariff. This measure will apply to imported steel products that can be made in the UK.

This is not a decision that I have taken lightly. I have done so to shield Britain’s steel industry from the damaging effects of global overcapacity, to ensure that Britain’s steel industry contributes fully to our critical national infrastructure and our defence, and to shore up the UK’s resilience to global shocks. Without this action, the UK’s steelmaking capability faces real jeopardy, leaving us reliant on overseas suppliers. I will not let that happen. Steel is essential for our energy security, our transport infrastructure and our industrial strategy, and in this volatile geopolitical climate in which we find ourselves, that kind of dependence is weakness. Britain’s national interest requires the strength of British-made steel. The tariff will be implemented once import quotas have been fully met. I believe that is essential for the resilience of sectors reliant on steel imports, including the car industry, construction and defence. We will review the measure in 12 months to make sure that it is working effectively.

Our approach reflects months of engagement between my Department, the Steel Council, businesses and trade unions. I thank the trade unions that have helped us, officials in my Department who have poured their heart and soul into this strategy, and my ministerial team for their contributions and leadership. We continue to engage constructively with the EU to protect vital UK-EU steel trade given our highly interconnected supply chains. Beyond the trade measure, we are backing electric arc furnaces to shift to greener, decarbonised steel production. As we see at Sheffield Forgemasters, electric arc furnaces have the technical capability that we need to produce steel to the very highest of standards for nuclear, for aerospace and for defence. This is important, as traditional blast furnaces will eventually reach the end of their operational lives. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I want to hear what the Secretary of State has to say. I am also certain that constituents want to hear him. This is a very important statement.

[Peter Kyle]

It is okay, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is just that everyone is shocked to see the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) in his place.

Electric arc furnaces are important as traditional blast furnaces will eventually reach the end of their operational lives and a managed transition is vital to maintaining supply. That is why we took control of British Steel last year, and we are currently working with the owner on the long-term future of the site.

The UK has the opportunity to lead in clean, green steel, and we are going to seize it with both hands. That is why we are also changing the clean industry bonus, making it easier for British steel to be included in British wind farms.

Britain can recycle more steel. Making better use of scrap steel is fundamental to the sector’s future growth. Millions of tonnes are ready to be recycled. We are building the technology to do it right here in Britain. We are creating a more competitive business environment for steel, too. We are tackling the high cost of energy. Our supercharger is delivering millions of pounds in savings for steelmaking firms. These businesses will benefit even further next month thanks to the changes that we are making to the network charging compensation scheme, which will increase the rate of relief from 60% to 90%. We are taking further action to support foundational industries by addressing high electricity costs, with a view to boosting supply-chain resilience. Our British industrial competitiveness scheme could reduce bills for other businesses in the sector by providing a discount of up to £40 per megawatt hour, starting from April 2027.

Private sector investment is essential for the steel sector. It is vital for driving up capacity and capability. That is why, within 10 weeks of taking office, we negotiated a substantially better deal to support the transition to green steelmaking at Port Talbot. We are welcoming investment from new entrants to the UK market. The National Wealth Fund is there to support them.

We will continue to work hand in hand with devolved Governments and steelmaking hubs in Wales and Scotland to bring in that additional investment. This is the vision that our steel strategy sets out: Government, with boldness, certainty, and urgency; industry, with energy, enterprise and expertise; and communities, stronger, safer, and more secure. All will be working together to make our steel sector attractive to new investors, innovators, employees and apprentices. It will be financially stable, internationally competitive and proudly British. Together, the strategy and the new trade measures will help to build a stronger, more resilient steel industry. They will take the immediate action that our steel industry needs and provide a plan to help the steel sector prosper for the long term.

Building a brighter future for Britain’s steel has already begun. Today, UK Export Finance has signed a landmark financing deal with Nigeria, which is refurbishing two major ports. As part of that agreement, British Steel Limited will supply 120,000 tonnes of steel billets for this work. That is a £70 million contract, the largest British Steel order that UKEF has ever backed, strengthening and sustaining Britain’s future as a steelmaking nation.

We need steel made in Britain in all its forms. We need it for the 1.5 million new homes that we are committed to build, for the third runway that we have approved at Heathrow that will require 400,000 tonnes of steel, and for our new data centres and gigafactories, such as the Agratas gigafactory in Somerset. A total of 23,000 tonnes of steel has already gone into its construction, all sourced from the UK.

Britain needs a steel industry for our national security, economic security and national interest. We need to ensure that Britain remains an internationally competitive steelmaking nation not just because our past was built on steel, but because our future depends on it. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

My hon. Friend is right to explain that this strategy is a holistic strategy. It looks at the industry as a whole and considers how all the assets can be brought together and given a sustainable footing. I will invest, modernise and protect where necessary.

On the questions about the EU, I have, of course, been in discussion with my EU counterparts. I met four EU commissioners in the last month and the vice-president. Next week we will have further discussions when we are in Cameroon for the ministerial meetings of the World Trade Organisation. These are important times for both the European Union and the UK. Our reset is important, and that reset work will continue. It is in both our interests to make sure that we invest in, protect and modernise our respective steel industries, and we should be doing so with as much co-operation as possible.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Judith Cummins in the Chair]

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.

Clause 1

Limit on selective financial assistance for industry

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

“(a) In subsection (1), at the beginning insert ‘Except in respect of exports to which subsections (4B) and (4C) apply,’”.

Amendment 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

“(ab) In subsection (1), at the end insert ‘except in respect of exports to which the condition in subsection (4B) is met, where the amount shall not exceed £0’”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 2. Together they provide that where the Secretary of State had reason to believe that modern slavery or human trafficking were likely to be present in the supply chain of the business recipient of the goods exported from the United Kingdom, the limit of commitments which could be made under arrangements relating to exports and insurance could not exceed zero.

Amendment 2, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

“(ca) After subsection (4A) insert—

‘(4B) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State has reason to believe that modern slavery or human trafficking are likely to be present in the supply chain of the business recipient of the goods exported from the United Kingdom.’”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 1.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

“(ca) After subsection (4A) insert—

‘(4B) This subsection applies to exports of goods in respect of which the Secretary of State has reason to believe that the goods exported from the United Kingdom are likely to be re-exported in a way that would, had the goods been exported directly from the United Kingdom, be contrary to any provision of the any Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, or of any sanctions regulations made under that Act.

(4C) In respect of exports to which subsection (4B) applies, the aggregate amount of the Secretary of State’s commitments at any time under arrangements relating to exports and insurance shall not exceed £0.’”

Clauses 2 and 3 stand part.

New clause 1—Impact of financial assistance limits—

“Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, and once every year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report assessing the impact of the limits set by this Act on—

(a) England,

(b) Northern Ireland,

(c) Scotland, and

(d) Wales.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the impact of the limits set by this Act on each of the UK's devolved nations.

New clause 2—Impact of financial assistance limits on the steel industry—

“(1) No later than one year after this Act is passed, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report assessing the impact on the UK steel industry of the increases in the limit on selective financial assistance for industry and the commitment limits on financial assistance for exports and overseas investment for which this Act provides.

(2) A report under this section must include a statement of—

(a) the level of financial assistance provided in each month to UK steel undertakings under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 (as amended by this Act); and

(b) the number of UK-based full time equivalent jobs in the steel industry which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, would have been lost had it not been for the increases in the limit on selective financial assistance for industry and the commitment limits on financial assistance for exports and overseas investment for which this Act provides.”

New clause 3—Impact of financial assistance limits (No. 2)—

“Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, and once every year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report assessing the impact of the limits set by this Act on—

(a) gross domestic product (GDP),

(b) export capacity of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and

(c) volume of trade between the United Kingdom and the European Union.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the impact of the limits set by this Act on GDP, SMEs, and trade between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

I support the Bill. I support the intent behind clauses 1 and 2 to create headroom so that the Government can act to support manufacturers and exporters, but I ask the Minister for reassurance on three points: that SMEs will be able to access trade finance in practice; that downstream steel processors and manufacturers will not be overlooked in favour of larger players; and that defence exporters will see improvements in licensing speed and fair access to finance.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats support this Bill, and we support the amendments that are before the Committee today. The Bill does something that is straightforward and necessary: it raises the Industrial Development Act cap from £12 billion to £20 billion, reflecting inflation since the alignment was last set in 2009, and it nearly doubles UK Export Finance’s commitment limit from £84 billion to around £160 billion. Both the industrial assistance and export finance frameworks would hit their ceilings if we did not make these changes, so it is really important to make them. We support the Bill because British businesses need the Government’s backing to compete globally, and these limits need to keep pace with our ambition.

The amendments before us would strengthen the Bill in a few distinct ways. Amendments 1 and 2 would ensure that Government-backed export finance cannot be used to support businesses whose supply chains involve modern slavery or human trafficking. That is a straightforward ethical line. British taxpayers should not be underwriting exploitation, and we Liberal Democrats are glad to support the amendments. I ask the Minister to confirm what existing safeguards are in place, and whether implementation guidance will be issued so that businesses know where they stand.

Amendments 3 and 4 would address the risk that UK Export Finance could facilitate sanctions evasion through re-exporting. As we raise the statutory limit to £160 billion, Parliament must be satisfied that none of this expanded headroom can be used in a way that undermines our sanctions regime, so we support the amendments.

New clause 1 would require annual reports on the impact of the limit changes on each of the four UK nations. Although export finance is a reserved matter, outcomes are not necessarily evenly distributed. A report would allow Parliament to scrutinise whether the expanded capacity is reaching every single part of the United Kingdom, so we support the new clause. New clause 2 would require annual reports on the steel industry. Steel is of profound strategic importance to the UK and deserves the dedicated parliamentary scrutiny that the new clause suggests, so we support it.

New clause 3, which appears in my name, would require the Secretary of State to report on the annual impact of the Bill on GDP, on the export capacity of small and medium-sized enterprises, and on the volume of trade between the United Kingdom and the European Union. UKEF’s 2024 to 2025 activity contributed £5.4 billion to the UK economy, and Parliament should be able to verify such a claim on an annual basis. According to the Office for National Statistics, there are 5.7 million SMEs in the UK, yet UKEF’s annual report shows that it supported just 667 businesses. Annual reporting would hold the Government to their own target of supporting an additional 1,000 SMEs to export. It would make visible whether the current eligibility criteria, which require at least 20% of a business’s annual turnover to be from exports in any one of the previous three years, continue to lock out businesses trying to break into export markets for the first time.

On the UK-EU trade part of new clause 3, the Chartered Institute of Export & International Trade has documented a 30% fall in EU export value among the smallest firms since the trade and co-operation agreement came into force. A recent Institute of Directors policy voice survey found that 54% of businesses that stopped exporting to the EU cited the trading relationship with the EU as one of the reasons why. These are not businesses that failed to break into new markets, but established exporters that have walked away from our largest and nearest trading partner because the barriers in their way are too great to bear. Every customs declaration and every check that did not exist before 2021 is another reason why businesses are not exporting to the EU, because it simply is not worth it for them. Those are the realities behind the statistics that simply increasing UKEF capacity alone cannot fix. Parliament should be able to see whether expanded UKEF capacity is making a measurable difference to those figures, so we hope the Minister will support new clause 3.

The most effective long-term support for British exporters would be a new bespoke UK-EU customs union. Analysis by Frontier Economics, commissioned by Best for Britain, in February 2025 suggested that a customs union could boost British GDP by 2.2%. The House of Commons Library estimates that this could generate £25 billion in additional annual tax revenue for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which I know the Chancellor would be grateful for. New clause 3 is the link or accountability mechanism that would allow Parliament to see whether what has been proposed is working.

We will support the Bill and the amendments to it, because capacity without accessibility is meaningless, and capacity without accountability is unacceptable. The Government need to accept the new clauses that match the expanded headroom with the practical reforms to ensure that they reach the 5.7 million SMEs, which are the backbone of British business, currently not being supported by UK Export Finance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

Of course. That is further compounded by the fact that if those companies did set up in Northern Ireland and were manufacturing businesses dependent on raw materials coming from GB, as most are, they would have to pass through an international customs border with extra costs as well. In Northern Ireland, they are being invited not only to set up in a place where state aid may be capped by a foreign jurisdiction, but to set up in a jurisdiction where the raw materials will, by virtue of the Irish sea border, cost them more.

The Minister will say, as he has said to me before, “Ah, but you have the advantage of dual market access.” No, we do not. We have the worst of all worlds in Northern Ireland. We have the worst of all worlds in the sense that our raw materials are hiked in price because of the Irish sea border, and we now have the reduction in available state aid—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is minded of the Bill that we are discussing and will soon get back to it.

INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the agreement the Government have secured to protect vital chemical production and hundreds of jobs at the INEOS ethylene cracker in Grangemouth.

Three quarters of Grangemouth’s ethylene production is consumed domestically by our key industries, and the plant is strategically important for those industries and for UK supply chains more broadly. Its ethylene is essential for critical national infrastructure, including medical-grade plastics used in the health service, and its chemical supply chains are used for water treatment. These materials are also vital to many of our industrial strategy priority sectors, including advanced manufacturing, life sciences and defence, which all depend on a ready supply of them. The plant also links to the Forties pipeline system, which is key for transporting our North sea oil and gas to onshore infrastructure.

Despite the site’s strategic importance, we know that INEOS has faced a number of significant challenges that have had a severe impact on trading. The site, like many chemical complexes in the UK and the EU, has faced the risk of closure. Given the national importance of the plant and its unique contribution to the UK economy, the Government are clear that closure is not an outcome we are willing to accept. That is why I can confirm to the House today that we are stepping in and providing a support package to INEOS of over £120 million, which forms part of a wider £150 million investment with INEOS to help to ensure the site remains commercially viable and sustainable in the long term.

This support package comprises a grant and a Government-backed loan to protect 500 jobs in Grangemouth and many hundreds more within critical supply chains. As part of the agreement, Ineos will continue operations and will invest at least £30 million into the site, on top of the hundreds of millions it has already invested in recent years. The agreement will therefore protect jobs and safeguard taxpayers’ money.

The Government set a very high bar for interventions of this kind. We assess the viability of the business, the economic and social impacts of our investments, and the contributions of the private sector, including shareholders. Where we do intervene, we set clear and strict conditions on how those investments are used. In this case, our funding will secure ongoing operations. It will improve the site’s energy efficiency, decrease carbon emissions and increase productivity. Funding for this support will be covered by existing budgets that have been agreed as part of the departmental spending review settlements.

Interventions of this kind are rare, but when workers’ livelihoods and our strategic interests are at risk, a Labour Government will never hesitate to take action to protect this nation’s assets and economic security. We will work with businesses to build a secure, prosperous future for our industrial heartlands and for the whole of the UK. We are taking bold action today to ensure that the chemicals sector in this country remains strong for the workers and communities who have depended on it for generations. We are also ensuring that this sector can play its part in making the UK a clean energy superpower by the end of the decade. The chemicals sector plays a fundamental role in the supply of parts for wind turbines, for carbon capture and storage, and for our nuclear powerplants. We cannot afford to see those domestic supply chains disrupted, and we will not.

That is why, beyond this agreement, we will improve the business environment for British industries, including our chemicals sector. The industrial strategy is one of the ways we are doing that. Our gas prices remain competitive in Europe, but we are tackling long-standing problems with our high electricity prices. We have already pledged to increase the discount on electricity network charges from 60% to 90% for businesses in sectors such as steel, cement and chemicals. Some 550 of our most energy-intensive businesses will save up to £420 million a year on their electricity bills from next April thanks to that one change alone. Our new British industrial competitiveness scheme will reduce electricity costs for over 7,000 eligible businesses, including chemicals. We want to save them up to £40 per megawatt-hour, or 25%, from April 2027.

Supporting a skilled workforce is also at the heart of the industrial strategy. We are providing an additional £1.2 billion of investment in the skills system by 2028-29. That is because we recognise that a strong economy must rest on strong foundations. That includes our defence capability, energy security and chemicals sector. I say that because hon. Members will know that Ineos is not the only business, and Grangemouth is not the only site, to have experienced challenges over the past few years. That is why we have a vision for Grangemouth’s long-term future that is energy efficient and sustainable.

The agreement we have announced today shows that we will forge the right partnerships between industry, the UK Government and the Scottish Government to make it a reality. As part of those efforts, up to £200 million of investment from our national wealth fund will support new opportunities in Grangemouth. Several projects are already under active consideration. Backed by funding announced by the Chancellor at the Budget, the Scottish company MiAlgae has announced that it will deliver a new biotech project at the site, creating 400 well-paid green jobs.

To support workers at the nearby ExxonMobil Mossmorran plant, which will close early next year, the UK Government and the Scottish Government, alongside Fife council, are setting up a dedicated taskforce. It will ensure that employees affected by that closure will be afforded every chance of securing valuable employment. As part of the agreement being announced today, Ineos Grangemouth has committed to giving those impacted workers a guaranteed interview for available roles at its site. The Grangemouth training guarantee will also be expanded to those employees who provided shared services for the refinery, ensuring that they have the skills and qualifications they need to succeed in the local labour market.

All those measures complement the efforts being undertaken as part of the Grangemouth just transition. That is important, because the agreement we have announced today is not just about supporting a single site or a single company; it is about securing a stable industrial pipeline now and for many years to come. It is about having a clean break from the managed decline of the past and delivering the decade of national renewal that we promised for Grangemouth and for the whole UK. For those reasons, I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend is quite right, and I would also like to thank her for her engagement on these subjects as well. She rightly pointed out what a vibrant industrial community there is around the Grangemouth area. Already we have companies, such as Babcock, that are keen to recruit people in that local area and that recognise the skills of the workers who will no longer be employed at Mossmorran from February onwards. With the support that the Government have put in place, including the taskforce led by Fife council, and with the Scottish Government and the UK Government working together in concert, I am confident that we will find new jobs for those people, recognising their very high skills.

My hon. Friend mentions MiAlgae—£3 million of support was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget. This great company will be operating on the Grangemouth site, directly in line with the strategy set out in Project Willow, which was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and which he spoke about at the Liaison Committee earlier this week. That points directly to the bright future for Grangemouth.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. I welcome the Government’s announcement that they are stepping in to offer support and protect jobs in this vital industry. We have a duty to safeguard our national security and economic prosperity, and to ensure a fair transition to clean energy. This statement is a step in that direction.

We have long been champions of British industry. We are proud of the industrial policies that we introduced in government, and we must never return to the neglect we saw under the Conservatives, who scrapped our industrial strategy. Having said that, we need to see a far more cohesive plan from this Government to support British business, including our chemicals sector.

High energy costs are a fundamental challenge. The industrial competitiveness scheme will support the 7,000 most energy-intensive firms, but it will not launch until April 2027. Will the Government confirm whether the Grangemouth plant will be included in the scheme? Do Ministers acknowledge that if the scheme had been in place earlier, the situation might have been avoided? Does the Minister agree that we need a long-term plan to slash energy costs for households and businesses alike by seriously investing in renewables and decoupling electricity from gas prices?

Finally, I must press the Minister on another huge added cost for which the Government are responsible, which is of course the national insurance increase. Will he tell the House what is the tax hit imposed on the Grangemouth plant through the national insurance hike since last year’s Budget? Is it greater than the £50 million Government grant handed to Ineos today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Members know that I want to get everybody in, but I am aiming to finish the statement at around 5.30 pm, so please help each other by asking short questions and giving short answers.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

I strongly welcome today’s announcement, which is important not only for workers in Grangemouth but for the wider Scottish economy. Whether it is today’s announcement about Grangemouth, protecting shipbuilding on the Clyde or the supercomputer in Edinburgh, the Labour Government are standing up for workers and for Scotland’s strategic industries. Does the Minister agree that whereas Labour stands up for manufacturing, the SNP can only manufacture grievance?

[Chris McDonald]

I certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. Given that he represents Edinburgh, he might like to learn an interesting Grangemouth fact: if the Government had not stepped in to support Ineos, the Grangemouth site would be flaring enough gas every day to power the entire city of Edinburgh, such is the scale and importance of the Grangemouth site.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Dr Scott Arthur to ask a succinct question.

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

No pressure, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his statement and for not giving up on these workers. He was slightly generous in describing the situation inherited from the SNP and the Tories as “managed decline”, but perhaps that was because it is Christmastime. It is great to see my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), on the Front Bench, and I thank him for all his work in saving these jobs as well. On Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and I were at a meeting with representatives of the aviation sector, where Grangemouth was mentioned repeatedly. The aviation sector is desperate for more sustainable aviation fuel production in the UK and it is targeting Grangemouth as a potential source. Does the Minister agree with the sector about that?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Minister, I need you to lead by giving an answer that is the definition of succinct.

[Chris McDonald]

I will try to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker. Grangemouth certainly has great potential for the manufacture of sustainable aviation fuel, along with our other clusters. My hon. Friend mentioned managed decline, but it was worse than that: it was complete indifference to industry and manufacturing in the UK.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Well, I hope that I can find the right hon. Gentleman’s sweet spot, as he is such a dedicated follower of fashion. He has made a very fair point. This is the classic problem for Governments when it comes to any industrial support, whether it is a loan or a grant: if the business is so successful, why does it need additional financial support? That is why, because of the structure that we have created through those two Acts, UK Export Finance actually makes money for the British Government. It is based on loans being made at normal rates, and sometimes it manages to lever in retail finance as well, which is a particularly important part of its work. However, when we provide a grant we have to ensure that it is intended to achieve a set series of aims. For instance, the £128 million—I think—that has been given to BioNTech is specifically designed to develop two new R&D hubs producing 400 new highly paid jobs in the life sciences sector, and also, incidentally, to tackle skin conditions and melanoma, which are among the subjects on which it is working.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that a difficult moment often arises, but one of the complaints I have received from quite a few sectors is that the UK can be a bit slow about deciding when we are going to support someone, and I want to be able to speed up that process as much as possible. As I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), I think the key to much of what we are trying to do involves supporting SMEs. Of course there will be massive contracts, such as the $3.5 billion expression of interest that we have allowed for the building of the new Dubai airport so that British businesses will be able to put in for some of the ensuing tenders—perhaps for hangar doors, the building of additional facilities, maintenance services or architectural designs. However, 88% of what we are talking about in respect of UK Export Finance is for SMEs.

I will make two more points, and then I will come to a close. Through existing provisions in the Industrial Development Act, the British Business Bank’s northern powerhouse investment fund II has directly invested £115 million in more than 300 small businesses. Similarly, in the midlands, the midlands engine investment fund II has launched a £400 million fund to drive sustainable economic growth by supporting innovation and creating local opportunity for new and growing businesses.

I am getting a feeling from the Chamber that everyone will be supporting the Bill. I think that, broadly speaking, it has cross-party support, and I think it important that we get it on the statute book soon enough to be able to provide that support for the businesses in the UK in the next financial year, so that we can prosper, grow the economy and protect jobs.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

This is an important Bill, not only for the agenda of increasing trade and therefore economic growth, but for our entire foreign policy in this chaotic and insecure international environment. My work over the past year as trade envoy to southern Africa has shown me just how important joined-up trade finance is to our diplomacy and to securing UK interests around the world, particularly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) said, in the steel industry. In many contexts, but particularly in Africa, economic diplomacy that centres trade and investment is what our partners want from us, and this is reflected in the new UK-Africa approach that was launched earlier today. Unless we have the means to commit financially and an anchor to bring together UK businesses and investors, there will be many serious challenges that we cannot overcome.

We need to build partnerships on critical minerals that protect our economy from the weaponisation of supply chains, particularly by China, and to implement the new critical minerals strategy. We need to create deeper economic ties with fast-growing countries and regions, including many of our partners in Africa, because we have been losing out on serious growth opportunities for the lack of a focused, strategic approach over the past decade and a half. We need to show our partners that we have a modern approach to international development that recognises and works with their own strategies and ambitions and therefore puts economic transformation at its heart. This requires us to be much more joined up across Government, and to do more with the resources available.

I want to ask the Minister how the changes in the Bill will complement UK Export Finance’s update of its own strategy. How will we enable organisations with a very long-term focus, including not only UKEF but British International Investment, to be more nimble and more ambitious in working together with our diplomats? As the Minister knows, I firmly believe that what our partners want from the UK is the exercise of cohering power: not providing the whole solution to our shared challenges, but being more willing to step forward and play a leading role in building that solution. Within this, our institutions could provide a bigger economic impact and secure far more UK influence if they worked more in collaboration on larger projects such as infrastructure, trade corridors, energy grid developments and critical minerals processing. This includes working together with close partner institutions, such as those of Japan and Canada, as well as with our EU partners.

The Minister will have read my views on these matters. It is clear that the UK is viewed as a cohering partner in sub-Saharan Africa, and I hope that UKEF being front and centre of that cohering international co-operation will help to address Chinese influence in the region. How does he think we can more effectively support UKEF and others to do that, given that it may require a more nimble and flexible approach than the UK institutions are used to? Today’s Africa approach rightly highlights the UK’s support for the African continental free trade area, but promoting intra-Africa trade and the critical agenda to move up the value chain often requires us to look across borders and apply a regional lens when we assess which projects to support. Can the Minister tell us how UKEF will do this?

Finally, I note that resource constraints are inevitably a threat to the implementation of the Africa approach, the critical minerals strategy and trade growth more widely. I have seen some innovative approaches across the continent that we can learn lessons from, including greater use of chambers of commerce to ensure that country and regional expertise on UK trade and investment relationships is preserved. I want to pour praise on the ambassadors in Mozambique, Zambia, Gabon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Angola, who have all demonstrated exceptional approaches to trade creation and innovation. I wish to ensure that they have the Minister’s support in the retention of those posts and our diplomatic network. Will the Minister set out how UKEF and our other key public institutions will work seamlessly across all mechanisms of government to ensure that we get the greatest value for public money, even when resources are tight?

Expanded trade finance through UKEF is an essential tool for putting these strategies into practice and making our country and our partners more prosperous and secure. The Bill takes welcome steps in fixing the framework governing UKEF and making that progress possible. I thank the Minister and his Government colleagues for their engagement with me on these issues over the past months, and I look forward to playing my part in driving this shared agenda forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

To wind up, with the leave of the House, I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I would like to pick up on some of the points made in today’s interesting debate and to reiterate that, as Conservatives, we have always stood shoulder to shoulder with Britain’s businesses and great exporters. In my opening remarks, I asked some questions of the Minister, and I look forward to hearing his replies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) and the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for all the work they are doing as trade envoys to the west and south of Africa. I remember when I was Africa Minister thinking how enormous the potential is for us to do more business with these nations, so it is interesting to hear how that work is moving forward.

A number of Members highlighted the excellent export work done by small and medium-sized businesses, and we heard some excellent examples from the north-east in particular. We also heard the case made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) for the importance of small and medium-sized businesses. I reiterate to the Minister, so that he is aware, the importance for the House of this money not just getting swallowed up by some of the larger household names, such as Rolls-Royce, Airbus and BAE Systems, but it giving that fighting chance to some of the smaller exporters.

I want to pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Maidenhead made about the customs union. The House will recognise how much work was put in to getting landmark trade agreements with 70 countries that give UK exporters preferential access to markets worth trillions of pounds. It is work that the Minister continues energetically around the world, and he will no doubt in his closing remarks point to the India and US free trade deals, which are important pieces of work that he has been involved in. Those free trade agreements that the UK has managed to negotiate would not be possible if we were in the European Union customs union. I challenge the hon. Member to point to where the research is on this fabled £25 billion.

In conclusion, the words of Ronald Reagan keep popping into my head during debates in this Parliament. He famously said:

“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

I hope to hear from the Minister at the Dispatch Box how he will ensure that this additional money is used in the way that I said in my opening remarks, where it crowds in private sector investment and is there as a last resort to get a deal over the line, rather than crowding out private sector funding that would have been there were it not for the Government funds. Without further ado, having got my favourite Reagan quote about this Government on the record, I can assure the House that we will not be opposing the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With the leave of the House, I call the Minister.

Employment Rights Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.

Clause 1

Right to Guaranteed Hours

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

I beg to move,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 1B.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 23 and amendments 106 to 120, does not insist on Commons amendment 106A but proposes Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 23 and Lords amendments 106 to 120.

That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 48B.

That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 60B and 60C but proposes Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 61 and 72 but proposes Government amendment (a) in lieu.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 62 but proposes Government amendment (a) in lieu.

[Kate Dearden]

I am pleased to speak on the Employment Rights Bill for our second consideration of Lords amendments, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her outstanding work on employment rights and her unwavering advocacy for working people. I know how close this Bill is to her heart, and I am grateful that she is here in support today. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for his work and dedication on this significant piece of legislation.

The Government’s top priority is to grow the economy and improve living standards. Essential to that is the recognition that greater productivity, security and dignity in work help to grow the economy. The stronger economic performance that our country needs cannot be built on the backs of people in insecure work. For too long employment law has failed to keep pace with the fundamental changes to how, when and where we work. It is time to build a modern industrial relations framework, fashioned on the principle of social partnership that consent and consensus must replace disputes and conflict in modern employment relations. That is good for workers and good for business. Both suffer when one employer is undercut by another, using reduced terms and conditions of service for their employees. Sustainable economic growth cannot be built on unfair competition and insecure employment.

The Employment Rights Bill extends the employment protections currently enjoyed by some employees in the best British companies to workers across the country. By doing so, work will become more secure and predictable while strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy. The Bill will back businesses that already do the right thing and give hard-working people the job security and opportunities they deserve. It is in tune with the times and in keeping with how the world of work is changing.

Industrial relations law in this country must move from the 20th century to the 21st. It has to recognise that certainty and security are essential for people at work, that the best relationship between employer and employee is best exemplified by fairness and trust within a framework for recruitment and retention that values both, and that dignity at work is as vital to the effective functioning of modern society as the dignity of work.

Some will seek to use this issue to entrench the idea that employers and employees have opposing interests that must always inevitably result in dispute and strife, and I reject that view. The very best trade unionists know, as do the best employers, that such a view only represents failure. For this Labour Government, success is to be measured not in division, but in the shared economic growth that we achieve, the opportunity and security we build and the prosperity we create, and that is at the heart of the Bill.

Today I ask the House to reaffirm its support for this important legislation as we move through the latest round of parliamentary ping-pong. We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, and in response we are offering, where possible, amendments in lieu that we believe strike a fair and workable compromise with the proposed amendments. Although we appreciate the range of perspectives offered, we will be unable to support certain amendments that conflict with the fundamental principles of the Bill and may compromise its intended impact.

We acknowledge that Lords amendment 1B, which relates to zero-hours contracts, is an amendment in lieu, intended as a compromise. It proposes a shift from a full right-to-request model to one in which employers must notify workers of their right to a guaranteed hours offer, and make a guaranteed hours offer unless the worker declines or opts out. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, but it would undermine the Bill’s core aim of ending exploitative contracts and providing security for the workers who need it most. We therefore cannot accept it.

The Government are committed to ending one-sided flexibility so that workers are not left guessing about their hours or pay. These reforms reward fair employers, modernise the system and come with clear guidance to help everyone prepare. For employers, clear expectations mean better staffing and lower recruitment costs through better retention. We also appreciate that some groups, including younger workers, value the flexibility of zero-hours contracts. That is why workers will be able to decline a guaranteed hours offer and remain on their existing arrangement if that works best for them.

The Government are also committed to supporting young people into work. The youth guarantee will include a targeted backstop under which every eligible and unemployed young person on universal credit for 18 months without earning or learning will be provided guaranteed paid work. The scheme forms part of the Government’s aim to provide targeted support for young people at risk of long-term unemployment. Further details will be confirmed at the autumn Budget, following further engagement, including with employers.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 48B on seasonal work. The Government recognise that work in certain sectors fluctuates seasonally, and that there are ways in which employers may account for that and remain compliant with the legislation. They may, for example, use annualised hours contracts, which offer variable numbers of hours at work at different times of the year. Additionally, the Bill already allows guaranteed hours offers to take the form of limited-term contracts where reasonable—for example, a fruit-picker could be engaged on a contract tied to the end of the picking season. In such cases, after the initial reference period, the employer would be required to guarantee hours only for the duration of that limited-term contract rather than on a permanent basis. The Bill also already provides powers to address seasonal work through regulations, ensuring flexibility as workforce needs evolve. Consultation with employers, trade unions and stakeholders will take place before such regulations are made. We therefore do not support the amendment.

Let me turn to unfair dismissal. Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120 propose retaining a qualifying period of six months for unfair dismissal. These amendments have returned to this House as the Lords have insisted on them. We remain committed to delivering unfair dismissal protections from day one—not two years, not six months, but day one. That was a clear pledge in our manifesto and it will ensure that about 9 million employees who have worked for their employer for less than two years are protected from being arbitrarily fired. Crucially, day one protection from unfair dismissal will not remove the right of businesses to dismiss people who cannot do their job or do not pass probation, but it will tackle cases of unfair dismissal in which hard-working employees are sacked without good reason. A six-month qualifying threshold still leaves employees exposed to dismissal without good reason in the early months of a new job, which is why the Government cannot accept the Lords amendments on maintaining a qualifying period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

The shadow Secretary of State is showing how much he despises the trade union movement and ordinary working people—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

[Ian Lavery]

I must declare a financial interest with regard to my connection with the trade union movement: I am a very proud member of a trade union.

In response to what the shadow Secretary of State said about support for the Employment Rights Bill, it was a manifesto pledge and the British public voted in their millions to support the Labour party to put this manifesto pledge through in its entirety. And guess what? That is what we are doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, at Prime Minister’s questions earlier today, the Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) no fewer than five times whether he was aware of any prisoner being released early, having claimed asylum. We now know that he had in his possession at that time a folder containing details of the accidental release of Brahim Kaddour-Cherif from Wandsworth prison last week—a man previously convicted of sex offences and who is, as we speak, at large and posing a risk to the public. It has emerged since then that another man, William Smith, was accidentally released on Monday.

The Deputy Prime Minister failed to disclose that relevant information to this House. The House and the public are entitled to be told about such things, but the Deputy Prime Minister withheld that information. The police have subsequently confirmed that they have no objection to that information being released, contrary to briefings from the Government. Will the Justice Secretary come to this House before the close of business and make a statement so that Members can question him? We cannot wait until the House returns on Tuesday for a proper account.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. Whether the Government choose to make a statement is not a matter for the Chair; however, the Treasury Bench will have heard the right hon. Member’s concerns.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that he was held back for operational reasons by the Metropolitan police from answering that question at Prime Minister’s questions. Mr Swinford of The Times has published right now that far from that being the case, there is

“significant frustration in the Met Police”,

as they said that there was clearly “no operational issue” at all with the release of that information. I wonder if you will take that into consideration, Madam Deputy Speaker, because surely this is a process of misleading the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I refer him to my answer to the previous point of order. It is not a point of order and not a matter for the Chair, but it is a matter of debate.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Can you confirm that it is a point of order?

[Graham Stuart]

It is, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that a Bill was presented to Parliament only this week that provides for a duty of candour for public servants. It is not enough simply to tell the truth; there has to be a duty of candour. Can you, Madam Deputy Speaker, share with the House whether the sponsoring Minister, the Justice Secretary, has decided to remove himself as the sponsor of that Bill?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order; it is not a point of order, but a point of argument.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I do hope that this is a point of order.

[Dr Murrison]

It very much is, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have this week had the publication of a very important Bill—so important that the Prime Minister himself came to this House to present it on Second Reading. The sponsor of that Bill is the Justice Secretary. While I have no doubt that the Justice Secretary was being truthful today, there is a question over whether he was being candid, which is a higher test. Can you advise me on how the Justice Secretary might be requested to come to this House to clarify his position?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. However, I repeat that this is not a matter for the Chair. It is not a point of order.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill: Programme (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7))

That the following provisions shall apply to the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 3 February 2025 (Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery): Programme):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 1, 75, 30 and 31, 43, 84, 97, 2 to 29, 32 to 42, 44 to 74, 76 to 83, 85 to 96 and 98 to 121.

Subsequent stages

Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to.