Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Luke Myer Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

There was absolutely a plan before the election to open arc furnaces in Redcar—that was absolutely case—and to move Scunthorpe operations to Redcar.

I asked the Secretary of State to address the issue of tariffs. There is no better example of the folly of these plans—

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

No, I am going to make some progress on tariffs. A number of hon. Members have raised this very important issue, shedding light on the way that the Government are tilting the playing field on tariffs. Under this Government, we have already seen a flurry of Trump-style tariffs—doubling steel tariffs and halving quotas—that elevate the interests of one firm over the automotive, aerospace, advanced manufacturing and defence sectors. Firms involved in the supply chains of AUKUS and Tempest are now looking at shifting tooling and jobs to other countries, instead of manufacturing components here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) have made exactly the right point: we need a more thoughtful approach.

I have written to the Secretary of State, as have many of my colleagues, asking that the tariffs are delayed for six months while the Department does more work; that the Government investigate more specialist grades of steel; that within the broader tariff buckets, they look again at the steel alloys used in the defence, aerospace and automotive sectors that are simply not made here today, because there are perhaps unintended consequences of the tariffs; that they be more forensic in their approach; and that they bring forward the measures the Conservatives have talked about on industrial energy costs, which are damaging not just the steel industry but many other industries’ and our basis on which to compete.

There is no point securing what the Secretary of State thinks is in the national interest for one steel manufacturer in a particular location if the foreseeable consequence, unintended or otherwise, is to ship offshore large parts of our high-end automotive manufacturing, engineering and defence industries, so that they are lost forever and conducted in other countries. I have raised that serious point with the Minister, and I ask him to address it.

[Luke Myer]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

I will give way if it is about this particular point.

[Luke Myer]

I am afraid that I want to give the hon. Member another chance to answer the question from my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), which was not about the prospect of a future EAF on Teesside—a prospect that I support but that the Leader of the Opposition confirmed from the Dispatch Box was not as advanced as the hon. Member claims. My hon. Friend’s question was about the crash closure of the blast furnace at Redcar in 2015, which ripped 3,000 jobs out of our region. What message does the hon. Member have for the people of Redcar, whose Government he was in when that happened?

[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.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Luke Myer Excerpts

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

[Ann Davies]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Some £500 million has been ringfenced for Port Talbot; that money is rapidly gone, with no benefit to the local community, but that is another issue that I will not talk about now.

We want an end to the double standard. Welsh steel must be given the same guarantees as English or Scottish steel. What we want is equality for all the sites across the UK; we want the same security and the same commitment to preventing closures and safeguarding jobs.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I am delighted to welcome the Bill, and will speak to a couple of the new clauses and amendments. I declare my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on steel and metals-related industries, through which it is a pleasure to work cross-party in the interests of the industry.

Just outside Middlesbrough, wedged between the gas pipes and the railway, is an old path. Someone walking there 200 years ago would have found sailors trudging through salt marsh hamlets, and 100 years ago they would have found steelworkers—hundreds of them—walking home on the tired commute. The cinders underfoot gave the path its name: “the black path.”

If someone walks that path today, they will see the remnants of a bygone age for Teesside iron and steel. They will see a former railway station, now disused, which was used for industry. They will see a lost ironworkers’ village and the red wild flowers that thrive on former slag pile soil. And, of course, they will arrive at one of the largest brownfield sites in Europe: the former Redcar steelworks, which once stood as a great shadow on our skyline, the heart of the region, pumping out steel across the world.

The phrase on Teesside goes, “We built the world.” Everything from the Sydney harbour bridge to the Churchill War Rooms were made with Teesside steel. It can never be forgotten that, in 2015, the then Conservative Government’s laissez-faire approach to Chinese steel dumping denied us the intervention that we needed on Teesside. The closure of Redcar steelworks tore a hole through our region and cost thousands of jobs. I pay tribute to my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), who at that point was a newly elected MP and fought tirelessly for the workers of Teesside, but we can never allow a situation like that to happen again.

We cannot change the past, but steel is not our past, as the workers at British Steel Special Profiles at Skinningrove in my constituency will tell us, or the workers at Teesside beam mill at Lackenby, along with the many supply chain SMEs on Teesside. Having run a Teesside steel company for many years, the Minister for Industry knows that landscape well. I commend the decisions that the Government have taken, particularly on British Steel, that have protected and safeguarded jobs in my constituency and my region.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a powerful speech and showing great expertise. Is he confident, as so many critics of the steel plan were not, that the £2.5 billion that has been found by the Treasury is sufficient to allow the interventions that he so enthusiastically supports? If it is not, is there not a danger that we will not invest in things, but just bleed out public cash on facilities that continue to be uncompetitive and do not get renewed? If we do not put the right resource in, as France and other countries have arguably done, we will be losing out and not winning.

[Luke Myer]

As a Back Bencher, I will always fight for more funding to modernise our steel industry. What I do know is that the current owners of British Steel are not responsible owners. We saw last year the crisis that was created when they failed to provide sufficient supply to keep the blast furnaces running. We cannot allow the current situation to continue if we are to protect our domestic industry. This Bill is about having the powers to nationalise and ensure that the national interest is served. Whether there is sufficient funding is a question on which I will continue to push the Government.

We are not focusing today on clause 58, but the freedom to make the necessary fiscal decisions to support operational stability and competitiveness is fundamental to the sunset clause we are discussing, as well as the potential for ongoing considerations on other critical assets that the Bill might be used for. It would be helpful to hear more about the Government’s intentions on issues like energy and procurement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) said. We had a positive intervention from the Cabinet Office last year and the ambition to increase domestic steel market share back towards 50% is right, but the test will be in the delivery.

For too long, we have had industrial strategies while approving publicly backed projects that import vast quantities of overseas steel. Taxpayers rightly expect public investment to strengthen British industry and British jobs. Mechanisms like contracts for difference and other subsidy schemes must align much more closely with procurement objectives, so that public money genuinely supports UK supply chains. The forthcoming defence investment plan is a major opportunity to ensure that we are using UK steel across the country in industrial communities to support national security. At the end of the day, economic security is national security. Britain cannot become dangerously dependent on overseas steel for critical infrastructure or defence capability.

While I support the shift to electric arc furnaces and the increased focus on how we use domestic scrap, which is welcome, Britain should seek to retain some primary iron capability. Other countries are investing heavily in technologies like direct reduced iron. We need only look at Luleå in northern Sweden, for example, where an operational hydrogen-powered DRI facility is already producing steel. That has not held the region back in any way. Economically, it has had the opposite effect of attracting inward investment in new industries, from data centres to clean power. I would like to hear a little from the Minister about DRI and whether we will be looking seriously at that, but I do not wish to stray too far out of the scope of the Bill.

The legislation was brought forward in the context of British Steel, but we should not pretend that British Steel is the only critical asset that may ever require Government action. There may be other sites, capabilities and parts of the supply chain where future intervention is needed to protect jobs, sovereign capability and the national interest, so my concern with amendment 12 is that it would make these powers too easy to lose. A future Government may not share the same commitment to active industrial strategy and may not be as willing to renew the tools needed to protect the sector, so we should not remove the extension mechanism now because we may leave workers and industry more exposed later on.

Opposition Members made the point that politicians should not run businesses, although of course the Minister for Industry did run a steel business for many years and did so very effectively. They may mean that politicians from this country should not run businesses. The Bill is before us because of the approach that Jingye has taken. The Chinese steel industry has long benefited from huge state subsidies, and cheap state-directed finance, energy support and overcapacity policies. Beijing did not leave it to the market; it used state power aggressively to expand industrial capacity, which is worth bearing in mind.

I will finish on this point. While the Government cannot say which assets they wish to use these powers for, it is evident that British Steel cannot remain in Chinese hands. I do not know what the long-term ownership structure will look like—perhaps it will be modernised and sold to a new buyer, or perhaps it will be taken into public hands and remain there, with steelworkers having some stake in the company that they built—but I do know this. When a Labour Government intervened to create the nationalised British Steel Corporation in 1967, Teesside enjoyed such high employment and high wages that it was classified as one of the best places to live anywhere in the UK. It brought stability to tens of thousands of families and built the second largest blast furnace in Europe.

In 1979, a very different Government took office with a very different theory of Britain—a small state and a blind faith in the global free market. In just five years, our region had the highest registered unemployment rate anywhere in Great Britain. By the end of Thatcher’s premiership, almost 250,000 jobs in our region had gone. They took a British industrial economy and turned it into a globalised service sector economy.

Today the Thatcherites are back, with a new logo and a new face. They will talk a big game on steel, but we have been here before. It is my belief that only a social democratic Government can truly protect our steel communities and equip them to face the future, because a social democratic Government recognise something that a foreign private owner cannot: the value of protecting sovereign industry, even when the going gets tough.

This issue is about our jobs, but it is also about our security. Will we be left exposed in a volatile world, or will we build for the future again? I hope that this Labour Government have the courage and ambition to do so.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Minister McDonald, I believe you wish to contribute again.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Luke Myer Excerpts

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

[Pamela Nash]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very helpful intervention.

For the reasons I have set out, we are getting to the point where we are losing experienced staff and equipment is in danger of going out of date. Time is running out very quickly for Dalzell. If it is left to close up shop, we will not be able simply to go back later and restart it. I have no intention of being the Member of Parliament who sees the closure of the last steelworks in Scotland, and I know the Minister has no intention of allowing that to happen on his watch.

Steel is Motherwell’s heritage and is also a key part of its progress. It is our threads in the fabric of the future of our country. I want my constituents once again to look at planes, wind turbines and bridges and be excited to know that the steel encasing them came from Motherwell.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I have seen in our all-party parliamentary group on steel and metals-related industries how my hon. Friend is such a tenacious and tireless champion for her part of the world and the steelworkers in it. She mentioned defence earlier in her speech. Does she agree with me that we really need the Government to bring forward the defence investment plan, that its focus really needs to be on making sure that steel jobs benefit across the UK, including in Scotland and in Teesside, and that small and medium-sized enterprises and the entire supply chain benefit as well?

[Pamela Nash]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for the publication of the defence investment plan, but I do not think it is within the scope of this Bill and it is definitely above my pay grade as a Parliamentary Private Secretary to Defence Ministers.

Finally, I want to see Dalzell again supporting a vibrant workforce, providing safe, well-paid, high-quality jobs to local people and being able to develop apprentices for the next generation of steel processing in Scotland. I want to see income investment in Motherwell from the reinvigoration of this plant, allowing surrounding businesses to benefit from its success. I reject the attempts of Opposition Members to limit the Bill’s ability to support our industry when it needs it most.

In his closing speech, will the Minister reassure the workers at Dalzell that this Government will support them, possibly with the safety net of this Bill or otherwise, whenever it is necessary? Will he also confirm to the people of Motherwell that Dalzell remains at the heart of this Government’s plans for the UK steel industry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Myer]

The Minister is right in what he says about trade. On amendment 6, however, industry is concerned that phasing out free allowances before the new CBAM is fully tested risks exposing UK industry to carbon leakage. Does he agree that the new CBAM must be robustly designed and implemented to genuinely level the playing field for industry?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metals-related industries. The Treasury is responsible for the carbon border adjustment mechanism and is consulting extremely carefully with the industry on that. I am sure that the Treasury will have heard his remarks and will take them into account.

Amendments 7 to 9 relate primarily to some of the environmental liabilities. The issue also arose in yesterday’s debate, where there were concerns about liabilities—the phrase “unlimited liabilities” might have been used. However, the liabilities are not unlimited. We have a reasonably good sense of what the liabilities are. We would expect the valuer to take those liabilities into account—that is quite right—but we have extensive experience with the remediation of similar sites elsewhere in the country.

The Committee has heard about the Ravenscraig site, but the Teesside site is a more recent example. The remediation of the Teesside site—the amount of public money spent on that—is well documented. The site in Scunthorpe is of a similar age, has had similar industrial activity, and is of a similar size. Ultimately, however, the Government are seeking to avoid the crystallisation of environmental liabilities by ensuring the continued operation of steel on the site. It is the responsibility of the valuer to take that into account when determining the valuation of the company. For that reason, the Government do not consider it necessary to support amendments 7 to 9.

Amendments 10 and 11 propose increasing the frequency of reporting on financial assistance to every three months. Again, it is the Government’s view that the current framework is proportionate in terms of the balance between transparency and delivery. We are incredibly concerned to ensure that we do not impose unnecessary administrative burdens. Inevitably, the management of a business acquired through the Bill and the civil servants in my Department would have to deal with the reasons for the business’s acquisition. Although we of course feel that reporting, transparency and accountability to this House are important, we are trying to strike a balance.

I know that amendment 20 is particularly important to the Opposition, so I will spend a bit of time on it. We are all incredibly concerned about value for money, but we have existing arrangements across Government to deal with that. It is already the case that Departments must secure value for money under the Treasury’s managing public money framework. It is also our view that the drafting of the amendment does not quite meet the requirement as described: that the National Audit Office would check the assistance prior to being approved. We think that putting this requirement in statute would unnecessarily reduce the Government’s ability to act quickly where support is needed. We have heard from many contributions today that on the presumption that the legislation will be required, the Government must be able to move quickly.

We have seen the need for acting quickly before. Harking back to a previous example of a failed steel business, I recall that we had only a matter of days within which to save the Teesside business due to a shortage of coal. Of course, we all remember that it was necessary to come back to Parliament at incredibly short notice to pass the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025, again because there was a shortage of coal, with the potential for those coal shipments to be diverted. It is therefore incredibly important that the Secretary of State is able to act quickly when required.

A couple of amendments have been proposed by Plaid Cymru Members—although they are not present, I think it is still responsible to address them. One amendment is about restricting the National Wealth Fund, with which I completely disagree. The National Wealth Fund is one of Government’s primary instruments for assessing potential investment opportunities and investing in industry. In fact, there is provision through the Government’s £2.5 billion steel fund for the National Wealth Fund to offer support to steel companies, as set out in the steel strategy. We intend to use whatever funding instruments are available to Government, not to restrict them.

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the incident last Wednesday at the Port Talbot site. Pickle lines are notoriously susceptible to these sorts of incidents because of the high-temperature hydrochloric acid used to treat the steels. I would imagine that once such a blaze has taken hold, the effects can be absolutely devastating. I want to echo her commendation of the emergency services and the workforce, who are, in this situation, the first responders, protecting life and valuable industrial plants. I was incredibly relieved to hear shortly after the incident that every single member of staff was accounted for. It is a credit to Tata Steel and its management processes.

I am, however, concerned about our loss of productive capacity there as a result of this incident. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, we are fortunate in having another pickle line available in Llanwern, and I understand that as of last Friday Tata Steel is looking at restarting that plant and moving the work there—perhaps it has already restarted—but the hot mill was down for a time in Port Talbot. This really emphasises where we have points of vulnerability in our industrial capacity, not only in steel but more broadly. We are determined to address those points through this Bill, our steel strategy and our wider industrial strategy. I thank her for raising that matter.

[Luke Myer]

I thank the Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous. He has made a couple of references to the Teesside site, both to the crash closure in 2015 and to the remediation of the land. With that land having now been remediated, immense steel structures are being built there as part of the Government’s carbon capture programme. It was great to be on site recently and to see the progress of that site. The project is using 50% UK steel; of course, Liberty Steel in Hartlepool has benefited from that. Does the Minister agree that procurement measures like contracts for difference need to be adjusted to ensure that we are using domestic steel in as much of our major infrastructure projects as possible?

[Chris McDonald]

I agree that procurement has an important role to play here. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have welcomed recent changes in guidance by the Cabinet Office to ensure that British steel producers are well placed to win these orders, as well as in the areas of renewable energy, where the Government are awarding significant contracts, and nuclear power, where we are again endeavouring to ensure that British companies are well placed to win those contracts.

I turn to amendment 22 and new clauses 4 and 12, which would impose statutory caps on compensation and financial assistance. I have already addressed compensation, and financial assistance is somewhat similar in that applying a cap on the basis of the number of employees, or indeed a fixed cap of any kind, would ultimately restrain the Government’s ability to respond effectively to circumstances as they evolve.

I believe that could fundamentally undermine the purpose of the Bill, which is for the Government, with the will of Parliament, to be ready to respond to circumstances such that we are not required to fly back from wherever we are in the world at incredibly short notice, and prolong uncertainty among the workforce and suppliers. We do not want to create any legal uncertainty, uncertainty in the supply chain or commercial uncertainty. That is why it is important to have this level of flexibility.

The Bill has proportionate and robust transparency and accountability mechanisms for the provision of financial assistance. For instance, clause 59 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament at 12-monthly intervals, and funding will be subject to the established framework for managing public money, including through Treasury approval processes.

New clause 6 would place on the Secretary of State a requirement to put forward a proposal to Parliament about providing financial assistance if a Select Committee were to make recommendations on that. Again, that is not realistic. Given that financial support would be required immediately following a transfer, there would not be time for that level of parliamentary scrutiny. Important though scrutiny is—I certainly welcome the investigation into steel currently being carried out by the Public Accounts Committee—we have to be realistic about the point at which it is possible to apply scrutiny.

New clause 7 would require impact assessments to be published before exercising the Bill’s provisions. Again, the issue is essentially about pace among other things. We believe that impact assessments are crucial to show the impact of Government intervention, and the Government are committed to operating in line with our better regulation framework requirements. We do not want to introduce any further legal uncertainty, so we reject the new clause.

A number of colleagues mentioned new clause 9, so it is important to address some of the issues raised around that. Fundamentally, the new clause would not be at all helpful; I will give an example as to why. There is an assumption in the new clause that if the Government were to nationalise a business under the Bill, the best approach would be to treat it like a hot potato and immediately throw it away. We have seen the impact of that.

We heard yesterday about the nationalisation—briefly—of British Steel by the previous Conservative Government: they spent £750,000, made no investment in the business and immediately sold it on to a company called Greybull Capital, whose track record was failure at Monarch airlines, failure at Comet electrical stores and failure at Rileys snooker halls. If you cannot run a snooker hall, you definitely cannot run a steel company.

This is where the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I have some points of agreement: there is more than one way to bring investment into a business other than selling it to an overseas investor. We could have debt and equity finance, and the Conservative party used to be keen on mass public ownership via a listing on the London Stock Exchange. There are many different ways in which we can bring private sector investment into a business and resolve issues around ownership.

Of course, it is intolerable to work in a business that is constantly up for sale—I have been in that position myself—as businesses do not perform in that position. A decision to sell a business is a decision made at a point in time, not an ongoing process. The Government therefore reject that new clause.

Given that I have detained the Committee considerably over the last couple of days, I have no wish to do so any further. I hope that, having responded as fully as I can to the amendments and new clauses, the Members who tabled them might feel sufficiently reassured not to press them and therefore save the House their consideration. I fully and sincerely thank everyone for their incredible participation in the debate, for the marvellous speeches that we have heard today, and for their strong interest in the steel industry that I have worked in and which I continue to champion in this House.