Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Debate between Peter Kyle and Saqib Bhatti

2nd reading
Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

The hon. Gentleman will know that when I took the difficult decision to introduce measures, I did so for products that compete directly with the products that we are capable of making domestically. Speciality Steel UK is going through an administration process at the moment, but when that is complete and the company is up and running properly, I need to make sure that its products and services are protected and viable domestically. Given the world in which we are living, where national resilience is so important to our nation and the economy in a way that it simply has not been for decades, the decisions that I am making to ensure that British steel production is viable and sustainable are of paramount importance.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

[Peter Kyle]

I am going to make a bit more progress.

While the Government are working alongside businesses to invest in, modernise and protect Britain’s manufacturing base, the amendment would deny the Bill its Second Reading. The very people who did so much to damage the steel industry in government are now trying to do so again in opposition—then as tragedy, and now as farce. As such, the House should reject the amendment. Britain’s steel industry needs an activist, interventionist Government, and it needs determination, decisiveness and delivery. It does not need a Government who have their hands tied, their room for manoeuvre blocked and their ability to act denied. Britain must have a strong domestic steel industry—now and into the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It probably will not come as a surprise to Labour Members, but I fundamentally disagree with the last speaker, although I appreciated his passion. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is getting a bit excited; I will come to him in a minute on the issue of tariffs. I am proud that we are the only party in this House objecting to the Bill, and for the right reasons.

The Secretary of State repeatedly talks about making this country stronger, but I do not think this Bill does that by nationalising. I just do not think that Governments can run businesses. I certainly mean no disrespect to Ministers on the Front Bench, but they will create inefficiencies and push up prices, and the taxpayer will end up stomaching the cost. That does not make us stronger; it makes us weaker.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), who spoke before me, said that we are still in the 1990s, but I think this Government are taking us back to the 1970s by pushing up costs and lumbering the taxpayer. A future Conservative Government will have to unwind some of the real harm that will come to fruition. No Labour Members can tell us where the nationalisation will stop. Will it be ceramics tomorrow? What will happen? Which industries will the Government pick and choose?

In the limited time that I have, let me come on to the issue of tariffs. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and all my hon. Friends who have raised this point, I have been visited by a constituent. His name was Peter Watson, of Davicon. I have written to the Secretary of State about this issue, although that was only last week; I respect the fact that he may not have had time to come back to me, but I hope he does.

Davicon is the UK’s leading mezzanine manufacturer. The briefing that Peter put in front of me was a result of the tariffs and the quota reduction. There is a reduction of almost 97% on merchant bars and an increase in quotas of 50%. For all the Secretary of State’s best intentions and whatever he wants to achieve, the reality is that industry and markets do not work to the whims of Government. They will not move quickly enough to do that, which will push up prices. In the briefing I saw, that would mean a doubling of the quota for per-tonnage steel by 1 July. That cost will have to be borne by industry and taxpayers. If we are talking about nuclear power plant creation or HS2, we know that those taxpayer-funded projects will have to bear those costs.

I was listening to the Prime Minister yesterday during Prime Minister’s questions, and it is clear the Government recognise that an issue is coming down the tracks. I argue that that should have been anticipated before the tariffs came into place, but we are where we are. I have written to the Secretary of State, and I would really welcome some serious action on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) made a really eloquent argument about a delay in the introduction. If that is not going to happen—

[Peter Kyle]

indicated dissent.

[Saqib Bhatti]

The Secretary of State is shaking his head. If that is not going to happen, let us look at the HS codes. He needs to recognise that there will be a serious impact on the steel industry and the peripheral industries that rely on steel manufacturing in this country.

Artificial Intelligence Opportunities Action Plan

Debate between Peter Kyle and Saqib Bhatti

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I really look forward to Reading getting involved, and to it offering to partner with us. We want to get investment into great places like Reading, which has a lot of great small businesses. Small businesses in communities up and down the country could benefit the most. They might sometimes feel like they are tucked away, but they can enter the global stage because of the technology that is before us. The Government’s job is to ensure that the infrastructure is there, and that all the technology is as accessible to small businesses as it is to big companies.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

We should be under no illusion: the U-turn on a supercomputer is exactly that. We committed £1.3 billion to it; Labour cancelled it. Can the Secretary of State tell the House how much money has been set aside to achieve his supercomputer ambitions?

[Peter Kyle]

I admire the way the Conservatives just push through with this. They did not commit a single penny to a single one of the projects that the hon. Gentleman mentions. They want all the benefits of our Budget, but will not say how they would pay for them. He is actually asking me to cut £800 million, or £1.3 billion, of revenue—perhaps cut thousands of research grants to universities and PhD students—to pay for a project that the Conservative Government announced but did not commit a single penny to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Kyle and Saqib Bhatti

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

The Secretary of State, in one of his first acts in his new role, cut £1.3 billion-worth of funding that would have been transformative for enabling cutting-edge research and development in Britain. I note that he has also ditched our ambition to turn Britain into a science and technology superpower. We set a target of £20 billion for R&D, which we met, but he has set no such target. Will he be setting a target, and can he today promise that there will be no cuts to R&D expenditure?

[Peter Kyle]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his Front-Bench role. Let us just be honest about what this Government inherited. That £20 billion black hole affects every single Department across Government. My Department inherited a situation where the previous Government—including the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench—committed at this Dispatch Box to an exascale project to which not one single penny had been committed. That was a fraud committed on the scientific community of our country by that Government, and I had to make the difficult decision to move forward—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Kyle and Saqib Bhatti

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

Businesses I speak to are excited about the innovation that artificial intelligence offers, but deeply frustrated by the Government’s uncertainty over regulation. The original White Paper was delayed for a whole year. When it finally landed, Ministers told Parliament that a response to the consultation would happen in 2023, but we are now in 2024. Will businesses have to wait for an election to be given the certainty they need, or will the Secretary of State and her ministerial team commit to publishing the response this month?

[Saqib Bhatti]

Businesses have made it clear that they want us to ensure that we understand the risks or AI, but also the balance between those risks and the opportunities that AI presents. We have already committed to publishing the response to the consultation in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Kyle and Saqib Bhatti

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), to his role, and I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti), on his appointment and on the birth of his child. I hope that he is getting some sleep in these busy days.

AI has potential benefits across the public sector—I have seen that in hospitals, where it is already delivering huge benefits to patients—but the new safety institute, which will gather together world-class talent, is not being tasked with finding new uses to improve our public services. Why not?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank the hon. Member for his question and his kind remarks—I can assure him that I am getting some sleep.

The AI Safety Institute will look at the risks involved. We will be working with the private sector, and we have always been clear that AI brings many benefits and we will ensure that we have a regulatory framework that encourages innovation and growth in the private and public sectors.