Speciality Steel UK

Debate between Mark Pritchard and Jonathan Reynolds

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with whom I have been discussing steel matters in this House for many years. I am aware of the specific challenges at Llanwern. I believe it is a very sound business, and our trade defence measures will directly benefit it. Again, we have to strike a balance. People would sometimes like us to go further in one direction than the other, but this is all part of the support we have given the steel industry. I believe that the downstream use she mentioned will be central to the future of steel production in Wales.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

There is a central inconsistency in the Secretary of State’s argument. He talks about steel as a strategic asset, and I of course agree with that, but so are oil and gas, yet the Government do not seem to be coming forward with any proposals on that sector. He mentioned in his oral statement that the Government are going to pay this from “existing Government budgets”, but in answer to a question, he said that the money would possibly “fall on the Exchequer”, so how much is this going to cost? He also mentioned that he would prefer for the business to remain in the private sector, which is encouraging to hear, so does he have an indicative timetable for when it might go back on the market and be sold?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The right hon. Member will understand that I will not comment on matters pertaining to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, but stick to the considerable number of issues in the domain of BIST. He specifically asked about cost. The cost for the official receiver is £11 million a month, which is in the main to meet the payroll cost of the more than 1,200 members of staff that the sites employ. That is what we have done to date, and it is what we will continue to do.

On returning it to the private sector, we first have to see whether there is an opportunity to save this business. That may require public acquisition, as I said in my statement. If we follow the path in that direction, we would have to inject working capital—the process can now ascertain what that sum of money would be—to make the products and the business plan attractive and enable a return to the private sector, but that is a long way down the road. If we put in public money, I would want a return for that public money. I am more than willing—keen, in fact—to see this business return to the private sector, but if we put in public money to turn it around, I would obviously want to protect that money. I think is an entirely pragmatic and reasonable consideration.

Harland & Wolff

Debate between Mark Pritchard and Jonathan Reynolds

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her expertise and insight on this matter. I understand the point that she makes, but it is perhaps one for my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. I will ask them to engage with her on those ambitions to remedy the absence of capability, but I believe that that would be challenging.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I welcome the statement, and particularly the protection of the fleet solid support programme, but I join my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), in saying that we will have to wait to see the details. In principle, however, the deal sounds very encouraging indeed, and I congratulate the Secretary of State and all his team and officials for getting it over the line. He mentions world-class shipbuilding in the UK. He said from the Dispatch Box that national security is the foundation of the plan for change, and his Department’s online statement talked about sovereign capability, but does he accept that without steel, ships cannot be built? Will he take this opportunity to say what more can be done, in a dangerous world, to reduce the UK’s increasing reliance on imports from elsewhere, including from Sweden and Asia, so that ships can be delivered in times of conflict or war?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I very much share the right hon. Gentleman’s aspirations. He will know that most defence steels are higher end—they are specialised and tend to come from electric arc furnaces—and one challenge that we have inherited relates to the two remaining blast furnace sites in the UK. We have improved the situation in Port Talbot, but we could not change direction, with the blast furnaces going offline before the arc furnace was installed. We have inherited an even more challenging position in relation to Scunthorpe, but we are working closely with the company to find a solution.

I believe that we are missing real capabilities in the UK. I can see the economic and business case for plate mill, for instance, and for the long-term question of direct reduced iron in steel production. The steel strategy is part of delivering on that. A whole range of horizontal policies, particularly on energy prices, would have to be in a corresponding position for us to do that. The fact that the UK has such a small steel sector relative to the size of our economy makes us an outlier among developed nations and suggests that there is a real evidence base for improving it, and I will work with any Member of the House to deliver that.