Steel Industry

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and then repeated by my noble friend Lord Moylan hangs in the air of your Lordships’ Chamber, brooding and unanswered: what is the justification for having a permanent, open-ended commitment to subsidise domestic production? We have heard a perfectly reasonable case that we need lots of steel and security of supply. I agree with that, but the way to have security of supply, whether of steel or anything else, is to source from the widest possible variety of sources so that you are not subject to a localised shock or disruption, which might as easily happen in your own territory as anywhere else.

That is exactly where we are with steel. There is no foreign country that accounts for more than 15% of our total imports—not our total use, our total imports. It is an extremely comfortable position. There is a very widespread view, I think, outside this Chamber that we are somehow dependent on China or other unfriendly autocracies. We heard it from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, a moment ago, but which countries actually are our chief suppliers? The first is Germany, the second is Spain, the third is the Netherlands and the fourth is Belgium. If, in some bizarre world, we were blockaded by the EU, we would still be able to import from Algeria, Turkey, Vietnam and South Korea before we got to China, which accounts for only 7% of our imports. We need to be realistic about the numbers.

If, for whatever reason, we decide that, despite that, we must have some kind of domestic production capacity at whatever cost then the easiest way to ensure that is to make our industries competitive by no longer imposing on them the most expensive energy costs in the developed world. We seem to have forgotten that actions have consequences. We pass resolutions and laws, we make decisions that make us feel warm and comfortable about net zero, such as not allowing the coking coal mine in Cumbria to be opened, and then we wonder at the consequences. If we want to have a domestic steel capacity, the way to do it is not to burden the producers and, indeed, our taxpayers with the costs of this policy and to be honest about the realism of deferring it.

I close by saying that we are again about to take a decision that will have consequences, which will be a repeat of a policy that has never, ever worked: the nationalisation of steel, which fails every time. It is like that scene of Homer Simpson constantly trying to grab his beer can from some electric wires and electrocuting himself each time and going back to it. In 1949 and in 1967, nationalisation led to disinvestment and maladministration, to political rather than economic decisions and, in the end, not only to the failure of the industry but to taxpayers being left on the hook, as it will this time, to the tune of £700,000 a day in this case.

“… the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,

And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire”.