Steel Industry

Lord Moylan Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, during the speech of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, I carefully watched the Labour Benches and, when he made some moderate criticisms of the Government, he faced what might be described as a certain degree of genteel barracking. What I did not see on the faces of those on the Labour Benches opposite was any suggestion or hint of apology—an apology, first of all, for rushing this legislation through Parliament with practically no scrutiny, when it, or something like it, must have been foreseeable in recent weeks. There is no apology at all for the policies chosen to implement net zero, which have included ramping up the price of electricity to an unprecedented level, and one that has no comparison in similar economies—as explained with such patience by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford. There has been no apology for the incompetence of their negotiations. An insight into their negotiating ability has already been given to us in relation to the Chagos Islands, and now we see something similar happening with the steel industry. There has been no apology for their recent resultant decision to block the domestic mining of coal fit for coking. This is no way to treat Parliament and no way to treat our industrial sector—and no way to treat the workers involved and their families.

I accept that there may be a case for extraordinary measures in the case of steel production, for the reasons set out—I thought quite well—by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in relation to defence and the needs of our industry more broadly. What I am not persuaded of is the assertion that steel is somehow exceptional. There may be a case for that but, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, pointed out, the case needs to be made and, so far, the Government have done nothing but assert it. Even the speech just now from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, did nothing but assert what is so special about steel. What about other industries under threat from high electricity prices? What about glass, chemicals, cars and concrete? Do the Government have a plan? Are these extraordinary measures that we are taking today part of a strategy, or are they simply the result of panic?

The Bill itself is remarkable. It is not in fact nationalisation, as the Minister was keen to point out. It is in some ways almost worse: it is the confiscation and control of a private company, for whatever reasons, with no safeguards and no sunset clause, as things currently appear. Who knows—one may be inserted in the Bill before it completes its passage.

I conclude with a question that illustrates the rush with which the Bill has been prepared. In Clause 3(4)(a), the Bill allows the Secretary of State to enter the premises “using force if necessary”. I am curious to know whose force he is going to use; he does not have a force at his own disposal. The Bill does not give him powers to direct police forces to enter the premises and creates no provision, that I can see, whereby he can apply to the court for something that would allow bailiffs to operate. I would simply like to know, as a practical matter, how the Secretary of State is going to exercise this power to use “force if necessary”, should the owners of the factory choose to close the doors in his face.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I speak very briefly to my Amendment 2. Clause 3(4) makes it clear that the Secretary of State has power to enter premises and make orders on the premises, but the wording in subsection (4)(a), in which it says that

“the Secretary of State may … be accompanied by any person”

could be read to imply that the powers are invested in the Secretary of State in person—that is, that the Secretary of State themselves would need to be present on the premises. After speaking to the Public Bill Office, I wanted to give the Government the opportunity to clarify that a designated representative of the Secretary of State would be imbued with these same powers, so that any intransigent company could not seek to delay government action by demanding that the Secretary of State was present in person.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I rise on the back of that very interesting amendment to take the brief opportunity to ask again the question that I asked when we debated the Bill earlier today, which relates to the same clause of the Bill—namely, when the Bill says that the Secretary of State has the power to exercise force on entering premises, which force in practice would he intend to use? The Bill gives him no power to direct chief constables; it would be practically, and probably constitutionally, improper for him to send civil servants from his department to force entry into premises. There is also no provision in the Bill allowing him to seek a warrant that would result in bailiffs being able to enter the premises.

I genuinely want to know how, in practice, the Secretary of State would exercise force. When I asked that question in today’s earlier debate, I did not get a satisfactory answer—or, indeed, any real answer at all. I have no doubt that, now that the Minister has had the opportunity to discuss it with the Attorney-General, who is sitting next to her, it may be possible that she can answer me in her response to this debate.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendment tabled in my name. I am conscious of the extraordinary powers that are being granted to the Secretary of State today.

I will briefly speak in response to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. It is my understanding, having been in government, that anything in the name of the Secretary of State can be automatically delegated to a civil servant, but it cannot go beyond that. As we have seen in a number of cases, civil servants already have some powers to gain entry, but only in relation to specific Acts of Parliament—so perhaps this amendment would give a wide-ranging element.

This is clearly not an occasion to use the Civil Contingencies Act, but something that surprises me about this Bill is that the powers being given to the Government and the Secretary of State today are extraordinary and go way beyond what happened with the Coronavirus Act 2020. The inspiration for my amendment comes from the Bill that was presented to Parliament then. It set out that, to have scrutiny, a report would be put forward by the Secretary of State—over several periods, not just a year—and that there would be a debate on that report. Having a report matters because it would bring together how the powers have been used: have they been used in the way that both Houses anticipated? It may even extend to the provision of how the finances would be distributed for the regulations we have yet to see.

Overall, it is important that, when we give these powers for just one industry—I guess that if we were to name the company it would end up being a hybrid Bill, so that has been deliberately avoided to make sure that it covers the entire steel industry—we should be able to have regular discussions, not simply because this is the steel industry but due to the scale of the powers being granted. To that end, that is why I have literally lifted, with a bit of adjusting, what happened in the Coronavirus Act. Frankly, for something that took over our country in such an unprecedented way, I hope that the Government would concede to think carefully about how they will report back to this House and how this House can be involved.