Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Lord Bilimoria Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for introducing this debate, and I too congratulate him on his well-deserved appointment as a Minister. This Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill is a government Bill, and it will provide powers to nationalise any company involved in steel manufacturing where that is in the public interest. But we know the focus of the Bill is the potential nationalisation of British Steel Ltd, a company currently owned by the Chinese company, Jingye Group, and subject to ongoing government financial assistance, and it is still operating.

The Government said in May—last month—that they were minded to nationalise the company. This was cautiously welcomed, including by the local community in Scunthorpe, but concerns have been raised about the significant cost and complexity of nationalisation. Of course, the Chinese Government have urged the UK to act prudently and said that they would protect Chinese business. The Conservative Party, as articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, very clearly just now, has set out its opposition to the Bill, and stated that it does not address the problems affecting the industry, which I will address.

The company, Jingye Group, operates the only remaining blast furnace for steel, in Scunthorpe. This is the country’s only remaining production capacity for making virgin steel. If the blast furnaces are switched off, it can be very difficult and costly to ever return them to operation. The company was preparing to close down the furnaces, and noble Lords will remember that last year Parliament was recalled—something that very rarely happens. We passed emergency legislation, the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025, which gave the Secretary of State the power to intervene in steel undertakings—and that is exactly what has happened.

The result is that the production plant at British Steel is still producing. The Government have stated that they now want to modernise and co-invest with the private sector. The Minister for Industry, Chris McDonald, set out the details and said that government officials would continue to provide on-site support. To date, the Government have spent almost £0.5 billion on working capital to support British Steel. Can the Minister confirm that? When it comes to modernising and decarbonising, and providing stability for workers, suppliers and customers, the Government recognise that that will require both public and private investment. Can the Minister confirm that?

Then there is the impact assessment that was carried out for this proposal. It said that the 2025 Act provided only short-term emergency powers and did not allow for the longer-term planning or investment required. It also said that the powers could create fear among investors and put off UK investment in the sector—owing to, for example, concerns about government intervention —and that this could undermine jobs and attempts to develop the sector. Will the Minister acknowledge that aspect?

The impact assessment also said that, on the other hand, the powers could have a positive impact on supply chain confidence and reduce uncertainty, boosting investment in jobs in the sector, and that they could have wider impacts on supporting and stabilising the economy and jobs. Overall, the impact assessment said that the socioeconomic benefits were likely to outweigh the associated costs, and that there would be a post-implementation review within five years. There is now the beginning of a clear and credible long-term plan for British Steel, with low-carbon steelmaking as a priority.

An important point from a legal perspective was made by Peter Ware, who is a partner and head of the government sector at the law firm, Browne Jacobson; I have to declare my interest, as I have worked with this firm in my business. He described this as

“one of the most significant acts of state intervention in British industry in decades”,

and said that it would raise

“substantial questions that will need careful navigation”,

including on compensation and the transfer of employees. Will the Minister acknowledge this?

Of course, there are underlying sovereignty concerns that losing the Scunthorpe furnaces would, as the Minister said in his opening speech, leave the UK as the only G7 country unable to make steel from raw materials, and dependent on imports for a material central to defence and infrastructure. I am co-chair of the India All-Party Parliamentary Group, and the UK signed the CETA with India—its FTA—last July at Chequers, with implementation due any time soon. There was a pitch to Indian capital, yet the Bill contains a discretionary power to seize a foreign-owned steelmaker. That is scary to any potential investor and sends the opposite signal to the Vision 2035 partnership at the worst possible moment, when we are about to implement the CETA.

Also to do with India, there is Tata, India’s flagship industrial investor in the UK, with Jaguar Land Rover and of course the £1.25 billion investment in Port Talbot’s electric arc furnace, which the Government have supported with £500 million of grants to save 5,000 jobs. The Bill defines a “steel undertaking” generically. Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s intentions are to do with Scunthorpe and not to do with Tata? Having secured Tata’s £1 billion commitment, the UK is handing itself a power to expropriate that same asset in the public interest, and that is quite scary.

Moreover, when it comes to compensation and the valuing of the business—this needs to be taken into account—nil compensation could be awarded. This is something the Government could do. Tata’s entire transition therefore rests on government co-investment. If the state can seize the asset and value it, but for the support of the UK Government, the inbound investment is worth little or nothing. This is really very scary to a country we have just signed a free trade agreement with—a country with which we are hoping to double our bilateral trade from nearly £50 billion to £100 billion by 2030.

Peter Ware of Browne Jacobson again said:

“The compensation question is particularly complex: with the government having already committed over £400mn in working capital, Jingye’s scope to claim substantial compensation may be limited, but legal challenges under bilateral investment treaties or domestic property rights principles cannot be ruled out”.


Will the Minister acknowledge this?

Shevaun Haviland is the director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce. I chair the International Chamber of Commerce UK; we are the regional co-ordinators for Europe, and she sits on the board of the ICC UK. She warned of

“significant financial and logistical problems”

from planned tariff changes, cautioning that revised quotas and tariffs risked

“economic damage in key supply chains”

for sectors such as car-making, aerospace and medical technology.

Can the Minister please clarify the rumours circulating in the press that India may reduce tariff concessions for the UK due to steel tariffs jeopardising the FTA that we have signed and that this FTA should be separated from any issues to do with steel? That would be really reassuring to hear.

On top of this, we have the backdrop of US tariffs and the UK’s high energy costs. The Government announced their much-delayed steel strategy focused on reworking trade quotas designed to protect steel majors from a glut of Chinese imports. Before that, Tata Steel—I do not want to miss this point—had broken ground with £500 million of government backing, which is going to be a pivotal moment in UK steel-making in future. It is expected to cut the site’s carbon emissions by 90%, thanks to the £500 million help from the Government that will save 5,000 jobs. Tata Steel says it is paramount that how it operates and what it is doing should be a distinguishing fact versus what is happening with UK Steel in Scunthorpe. We need clarification that these powers are not going to be implemented for a company such as Tata.

Domestic demand is a challenging opportunity. The UK steel industry now supplies only 32% of the UK’s overall steel demand. Will the Government commit to a minimum threshold of 30% domestically produced steel? On top of this—this is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned—the UK’s energy prices are some of the highest in the world and certainly the highest in Europe. I will give some facts. UK steel producers face an average electricity price of £66 per megawatt hour, compared with Germany at £50 and France at £43. We pay up to 50% more than our main competitors right at our doorstep in Europe.

On top of that, steel is a highly traded commodity. I am chair of the ICC UK and regional co-ordinator for Europe. Our expertise is in trade. Our competitors in Europe have successfully accessed government grant funding of 50% and more for major operational changes. China’s steel subsidies are more than 10 times higher than those of OECD countries and more than five times those of non-OECD economies. Steel subsidies in non-OECD countries are 42% higher in terms of cash grants, and 11 times higher with respect to below-market borrowings than in OECD countries. How do we create a level playing field when we are facing this sort of competition worldwide?

On the other hand, there are great opportunities. Renewable energy infrastructure presents a huge opportunity for the UK steel market. One report shows that just the offshore wind pipeline will require 25 million tonnes of steel by 2050, with a potential value of £21 billion to the UK steel market over the coming decades, which will be great for our British steel industry. This reinforces that we need to have that 30% minimum threshold.

We are paying more than 50% more for our electricity than our counterparts in France and Germany. When it comes to facing excess steel-making capacity, the gap between global capacity and crude steel production in 2023 was estimated at 543 million tonnes. That is 70 times the size of the UK market. Exports from China this year are expected to reach 100 million tonnes, the highest since 2016, when the last steel crisis saw several steel plants close and thousands of jobs lost in steel-making countries around the world, including the UK. On top of that, there is the effect of the US tariffs. Tata Steel, for example, exports about 170,000 tonnes of products to the US. Those products are not made in the US. They can come only from us, so the US needs what we produce.

There is no question: we cannot compete on costs with producers in China and across Asian markets. They have lower environmental regulations and cheaper carbon-intensive energy and labour costs. It is very difficult. On top of that, UK steel producers face higher network charges despite the Government’s recent announcement of a 60% exemption for charges starting in April last year. Germany produced a 90% exemption and France 80%, so we could do more. Can the Government do more to help our industry?

My last two points are about research and development and innovation. Tata Steel spends around £10 million to £15 million in R&D and collaborates with universities such as Warwick, Swansea, Cambridge, Sheffield, Cardiff and Imperial College. We must encourage more of this research and development between our industry and universities. On skills, we need core capabilities in engineering, metallurgy, safety, sustainability, leadership, advanced digital, green skills and AI.

To conclude, I have the privilege of chairing the Manufacturing Commission, which is the research arm of the All-Party Parliamentary Manufacturing Group. Although manufacturing was 30% of GDP in the 1970s and has now gone down to less than 10% of GDP, the UK is still the sixth-largest economy in the world and the 11th-largest manufacturer in the world in absolute terms. It is, most importantly, high-quality manufacturing that we are proud of. Steel is a vital part of our manufacturing industry. We must do all we can to ensure that our steel industry continues to flourish and prosper.