Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Liam Byrne Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, I wonder whether you will forgive me for returning the debate to the Bill, which is about saving British Steel. That is what the debate should be focused on, and I commend the Secretary of State for bringing forward the powers to achieve that goal. He has acted with decisiveness, speed and certainty, and I thank him for the Bill he has presented today. He has acted in the national interest, and he has acted to safeguard our economic security. I am delighted that he has also acted in line with the Select Committee’s advice, which was tabled with him 10 days ago—as we know, that does not always happen. We urged him to maximise pressure on British Steel’s owners, not to do what was easy, but to do what was right. Today he has returned to the House with a Bill asking for the powers to do exactly that.

This legislation matters not simply because it protects 3,700 jobs in Scunthorpe, not simply because it protects 37,000 jobs in the steel supply chain across our nation and not simply because it safeguards nearly £2 billion of economic output; it matters because it defends our economy, our security and, therefore, our future. At the heart of this debate is a very simple question: can we entrust a critical national asset to a company we do not trust? I say no, we cannot, we must not and we dare not. We are presented with a very simple challenge in British Steel’s owners: we have a company in possession of an asset that we need, yet it is a partner that we do not trust. In a world where threats to our economic security multiply each day, we cannot allow that risk to fester at the heart of our industrial core.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Member agree that there is a wider issue at stake: our energy security and national security? We have seen what can go wrong with a Chinese company that we do not trust, and we see Chinese influence increasing in other vital sectors, particularly our energy industry. Should that not underline our concern and act as a warning that we do not want the Chinese to have control of our energy supply?

[Liam Byrne]

We are here in the House to answer a very basic question: if we cannot trust a company, can we entrust to it a capability that we need, when that capability is so vital to our strength? That is one reason why the Select Committee has set up a new Sub-Committee on Economic Security, Arms and Export Controls. We will be reporting back to the House on the state of economic security in our country before the summer recess, and I look forward to the hon. Lady’s comments on that report.

The general point I want to land is this: what we value most cannot be entrusted to those we distrust most. The timing of the Bill is critical; we live in an age of intensifying insecurity. President Putin’s violence is unabated, China’s military build-up is unabated and now President Trump threatens to upend the free trading system. In such a world, to surrender our ability to make primary steel would not be a misfortune—it would be negligence.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee has spoken to defence companies about how necessary it is not to rely on imports at a time such as this. Does he agree that national resilience and defence rely on industrial security?

[Liam Byrne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In this debate, we need to remember that 95% of our rail infrastructure is made by British Steel. British Steel also supplies three quarters of every major construction project in this country. Thanks to the Chancellor, we are about to invest £10 billion in the rearmament of this country; much of what we need to put in place will be made by British Steel. How can we afford to let British Steel go out of business today? How can we vote against the Bill? British Steel is not simply a pillar of British industry: it is a cornerstone of our economic security.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me, as a card-carrying advocate of industrial strategy, that this argument applies to some of our other key high-growth sectors, such as fusion, quantum and space? We have to accept that the days of easy globalisation are over and be a bit more strategic about how we support our emerging industries.

[Liam Byrne]

Mr Speaker, you know that I could answer that question all day, but you would rule me out of order, so I will confine my remarks to the Bill. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right, and that is why we have to work harder across the House to build a consensus about the big calls that we need to get right for our future.

British Steel faces significant headwinds, not just from Chinese steelmakers flooding the market, but from the new 25% tariff from the United States, and we have to rise to the challenge of decarbonisation, yet we in this House must keep our eyes on the prize ahead of us. The Chancellor has just committed £100 billion-worth of capital investment, we are building affordable homes at a pace not seen in decades and we are investing £10 billion in defence. There is a market to seize, but only if we have the means to supply it. British Steel cannot profit from Britain’s future if Chinese firms are allowed to kill it today.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I agree with the right hon. Member that we need a steel industry in Britain and that we need to invest in it. Does he not think that we could be going a bit further today and, instead of this temporary measure, taking the whole steel industry into public ownership so it can be what it has always been—the bedrock of manufacturing industry in Britain—and give us security for the future, free from market forces?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

The right hon. Gentleman may well be right, but this is the second key point that I want to land: the truth is that Jingye is a mess. It has failed to publish accounts since 2021. Two auditors have resigned; one cited material concerns about the company’s ability to remain a going concern. Inventories cannot be verified. Cash-flow statements are missing. The company is not acting in good faith, and that is why the Secretary of State is right to take the powers that he is asking for today.

It is clear that the escalating trade war between China and the United States created the imperative to act today. It is clear that Jingye was about to move primary steelmaking capability from Scunthorpe back to China and merely use the downstream mills in Scunthorpe. That may have been good for China’s economic security, but it is not good for Britain’s national security, and that is why we need to give the Secretary of State the powers that he is asking for.

The options on the table are very simple. The Secretary of State could do nothing and watch the furnaces close; he could hope, but hope is not a strategy; or he could act, as he has done today. He has acted with strength and made a decision in the long-term interests of our country, and the House should give him its full and unabated support.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Davis]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not, because lots of people want to speak. I will refer to something she said in a minute, so if she really needs to intervene, I will let her come in then. We are trying to manage a disaster—a disaster for Scunthorpe, which is local to me, as members of my community work at Scunthorpe. The knock-on economic effects will be felt much more widely than in one town; this will affect thousands and thousands of people all round.

This is also a disaster for our last primary steelmaker, and steelmaking has suddenly become more important. It was always an important part of national strategy, but Mr Trump has made it a vital, unavoidable piece of national strategy. We have to create a circumstance that allows the Secretary of State and the Government to manoeuvre us through that. As Members have said, that means having an energy policy that makes the plant viable—not just viable when it is owned by the state, but commercially viable. It means having an energy policy under which we do not have the highest energy costs of our competitors, which we do now. It also means that we have to think very hard about carbon supply. At the moment, the technology does not exist that allows us to make primary steel without carbon supply, so we have to think about that. Primary steel is a strategic supply, so we cannot rely on another country for it.

I want to see this Bill used in a way that gives the Secretary of State the time to deliver those things, but it must also give this House the right to see what he is doing and how the strategies are turning out. Nobody has got this right. If those on the Government Benches want me to, I can go back to 1997 and park blame, but I do not want to do that today. I want to make this viable. We have to get our energy, environmental and industrial policies all in line to make this work.

To put this in context, last year British Steel lost about £408 million—that was the September number. This year it is about £250 million. Neither of those are small amounts of money. The Treasury would shut down an operation if we just left something like that running inside the Government for very long. We need a new strategy that cuts our carbon emissions without exporting our industry to the rest of the world. I am afraid that most of our successes in carbon reduction over the last decade or two—or three—have been by dint of exporting industries to other countries, often with much worse records than us. In this case it would be China. China has 50% of the world market already. It has massive excess in steel capacity, and its steel capacity is the most carbon inefficient there is, so we would actually be worsening the circumstances.

[Liam Byrne]

The Business and Trade Committee has taken clear evidence that we need a carbon border adjustment mechanism, so that carbon-rich steel, such as that from China, is taxed much more heavily. Crucially, what is needed on the table are the steel safeguards from the Trade Remedies Authority to guard our markets from a flood tide of Chinese steel right now.

[David Davis]

I am afraid the right hon. Member is right. The difficulty is that we are in a new world. The terrible thing is—the House will only ever hear me say this once—that Trump has a small point in some respects, and we have to deal with the world as it is.

Moving on to the sunset clause, I can imagine that the instinct is not to put a sunset clause in the Bill, because we are dealing with a difficult negotiator, and putting in a sunset clause would be putting in a backstop. When we put a backstop on ourselves, we give the other side a negotiating advantage. In his speech, the Secretary of State mentioned that the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 would be a route. For those who have not read that legislation, we spent a year putting it in place under the Blair Government, and it has recourse to Parliament at every turn: Ministers are properly controlled, it must be transparent, and so on. I suggest to him that at some point he might organise a transition to that, so that the House has greater control. The Coronavirus Act 2020 did not have that—it missed all those defences—and look what happened to the policy as a result.

This is what I would like to see: recourse to Parliament over the actions the Secretary of State takes to manage the survival of Scunthorpe and the policies to ensure its viability and, in the post-Putin and Trump era, the security of supply. We want to see all those things, and we can organise legislation to permit them. I ask the Secretary of State to take the House into his confidence and do this properly.