British Steel

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Friday 20th June 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

The Government committed to updating Parliament on British Steel every four weeks for the duration of the period of special measures being applied under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025.

As the Chancellor set out at spending review on 11 June, this Government faced a choice in April: to let British Steel collapse, or to intervene. We were not prepared to tolerate a situation in which Britain’s steel capacity was critically undermined, or to see another community with a deep industrial heritage lose the pride, prosperity and dignity that industry provides. We are proud of our decision to intervene to save British Steel in Scunthorpe, and the jobs that come with it.

Since my last written ministerial statement on British Steel on 20 May, I have written to several Members to respond to further questions. Work continues to develop an impact assessment and bring forward regulations under section 7 of the Act, which allow the Secretary of State to introduce a compensation scheme for steel undertakings that have received a notice under the Act. We are committed to facilitating ongoing scrutiny of the Government’s use of these powers and, to that end, the Secretary of State has replied to correspondence from the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, and Baroness Jones will shortly write to the Lords Constitution Committee in response to their report entitled “Fast-track legislation and the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025”, published on 8 May.

Our intervention in British Steel under the Act has enabled the company to continue to operate two blast furnaces in Scunthorpe, and we have secured sufficient supplies of raw materials to maintain this asset configuration for the coming months. As hon. Members are aware, the redundancy consultation initiated by British Steel’s owners, Jingye, was cancelled shortly after the Government’s legislative intervention, removing the immediate risk to 2,700 jobs, and I am pleased to confirm that British Steel is now seeking to enrol its first apprentices in over 3 years. More than 200 people have applied to become British Steel apprentices as the business seeks to develop its next generation of engineers and technical experts, all based in Scunthorpe.

I am also delighted that British Steel, the UK’s only manufacturer of rail, has secured a new £500 million long-term supply contract with Network Rail. The 5-year agreement has an option to extend for a further 3 years and ensures that British Steel retains its position as principal supplier to Network Rail, the organisation which operates and maintains Britain’s rail infrastructure. British Steel will deliver between 70,000 and 80,000 tonnes of rail a year, all manufactured at Scunthorpe.

Government officials continue to work onsite in Scunthorpe, supporting British Steel’s management team. Our priorities remain continuing production, stabilising operations and remedying critical health and safety issues. Since the Government took control of operations, significant progress has been made to improve safety standards.

We recognise the ongoing interest from Members across both Houses regarding the funding that will be required for the Scunthorpe site. The position remains that all funding will be drawn from existing budgets, within the spending envelope set out by the Government at spring statement 2025. As the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made clear, the UK's fiscal rules are non-negotiable.

To date, we have provided approximately £100 million for working capital. This covers items such as raw materials, salaries, and addressing unpaid bills, including for SMEs in the supply chain. This does not take into account future revenue. As previously confirmed, the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for 2025-26 will reflect the financial support that the Department has given to British Steel.

As spending review 2025 has highlighted, this Government are investing for the long-term future of UK steel—from £500 million for Tata Steel in Port Talbot to new nuclear-grade capacity at Sheffield Forgemasters—and we will invest in Scunthorpe’s long-term future. However, we have been clear that there also needs to be private investment to modernise British Steel. Work continues at pace to develop the optimal policy and strategy approach, and we are working closely with Jingye to inform that process.

[HCWS723]

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

15. What progress his Department has made on developing an industrial strategy.

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

The Department is making good progress developing our industrial strategy—a strategy that has been called for by industry for many years and opposed by the Conservatives for ideological reasons. We have launched our consultation, we have met industry and thousands of businesses across the land, and we are finalising our report, which we will be publishing shortly. The spending review announcements yesterday on investment will add to the business growth in the country that we all want to see.

[Alison Hume]

British bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis announced yesterday that it is consolidating its operations in the UK to its Scarborough facility, placing 400 jobs in Falkirk at risk. The company is warning about competitive imbalance, the increasing market share of Chinese bus manufacturers and an absence of incentives for British-built vehicles. How are the Government planning to support British bus manufacturers as part of our industrial strategy?

[Sarah Jones]

This is a challenging and difficult time for the workers and their families at Alexander Dennis, as well as for the local area. As Members would expect, I have engaged extensively with ADL’s senior executives alongside the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Department for Transport and the First Minister of Scotland to discuss what we can do to support. We wrote jointly to the company, offering to support it in any way we can. There are many issues that we tried to talk through with its representatives. Bus manufacturing sits with the Department for Transport, so it is taking the lead, but we are working together to do what we can.

[Kenneth Stevenson]

Do the Secretary of State and the Minister agree that the industrial towns and villages that make up Lanarkshire must be central to any modern industrial strategy? Will they meet me, potentially in Airdrie and Shotts, to hear more about the excellent skills and potential that exist throughout the constituency that could undoubtedly contribute to their and this Government’s ambitious work?

[Sarah Jones]

Of course, our industrial strategy will speak to the whole country about the way that we are supporting businesses to grow and thrive. We have identified eight growth-driving sectors as the arrowheads of growth, but there are also policies that we believe will lift the whole country. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on the support that the local community showed in the recent Hamilton by-election, and look forward to talking to him further.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

As part of the Government’s industrial strategy, will the Minister and her colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology carefully consider Somerset’s bid for an artificial intelligence growth zone? Its unique advantages—the Gravity local development order, and its existing connections to the grid—make it an ideal location to boost jobs and growth.

[Sarah Jones]

We have very big ambitions for AI and growth across the country, and I am very happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about his proposals. I am sure that he has already talked to colleagues in DSIT, but I am very happy to take this matter further.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Cyber-security will be a key pillar in the industrial strategy. That is welcome news in my constituency of Cheltenham, which is already a centre of excellence in the sector. We are on the cusp of unlocking £1 billion-worth of investment at the Golden Valley development in west Cheltenham. I know Ministers are aware of that, as are their colleagues in many other Departments. A planning application is expected very soon. Will Ministers join me in urging the two councils—the borough council and the county council—to get on with it and unlock that investment, which will bring growth to Cheltenham and the nation and, crucially, support defence as well?

[Sarah Jones]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are doing what we can to unlock the planning challenges that people have faced for many years in a whole range of areas. We are introducing legislation to do that, and making several changes. I obviously cannot comment on specific planning proposals in his area, but he should be reassured that we are doing what we can to encourage growth.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

We have been promised a modern industrial strategy for nearly a year. First, it was going to be with us in the spring; then it was going to be published at the spending review; and now it will be here “shortly”. The industrial strategy seems to be a strategy to clobber industry with higher taxes and higher business rates. Will the modern industrial strategy have greater longevity than the Office for Investment? It was announced in October, and we were not given an update until last Thursday, when it launched. Yesterday, we were told in the spending review that it is now being restructured. What is the future for the Office for Investment?

[Sarah Jones]

I can guarantee the hon. Lady that our industrial strategy will have a longer shelf life than hers did; I think it lasted 18 months—I am not entirely sure. We forget, because it did not have much of an impact. We have worked with all industries across the country to put together a comprehensive package that will make it easier to do business in the UK, and support our city regions and clusters across the country, where we have excellent industry. It will turbocharge the eight growth sectors, and it will make the Government more agile in interacting with business. That is why we are reforming the Office for Investment, as we have always said we will. It is now a significantly more substantial organisation, and will give significantly more support. The hon. Lady should look at—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am really bothered, because we have only got to question 8, and I still need to call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome yesterday’s announcements from the Chancellor on investment in public infrastructure projects. However, the general secretary of the Prospect trade union has warned that the UK lacks the skilled workers required for the new defence and nuclear projects outlined by the Chancellor. Similarly, Make UK and the Federation of Small Businesses have highlighted that a shortage of skilled workers would be a critical stumbling block for growth. As we continue to await the much-anticipated industrial strategy, why are the Government moving funding away from level 7 apprenticeships, when we know that they support social mobility? More broadly, why did they not seize the opportunity in yesterday’s statement to commit to fixing the apprenticeship levy, to ensure that money is invested in skills and training?

[Sarah Jones]

Forgive me for my long answers, Mr Speaker, but there is a lot to talk about in the industrial strategy, and I like to talk about it. The hon. Lady raises an important point. There is a significant skills challenge, and we will not shy away from it. Yesterday, £1.2 billion for skills was announced in the spending review. We have announced £600 million for construction skills, because that is a big issue for building the infrastructure that we need. We know we need to go further, and we are working closely with industry on how we can use the resources we have to recruit the welders, engineers—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If there is so much to say, the Minister should bring forward a statement, or let us have a debate on this very important subject. I do not know how she will explain to MPs that they will not get in, because I am now going to topicals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

T2. This week, the Government have announced £86 billion for research and development. Recently, I visited PROTO and Digital Catapult in my constituency. Does the Minister agree with me that this sort of investment is exactly what Gateshead, the north-east and our country need?

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that he will do what he can to promote his constituency, and the extra funding for the British Business Bank will really support his area.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

T3. In the US trade agreement, the Prime Minister gave access to the UK market for 1.4 billion litres of US bioethanol. The Secretary of State will know that that is the entire size of the UK market. Yesterday, apprentices came here from Vivergo in my constituency. The hundreds of people directly employed there, and the thousands in the supply chain, wonder how this Government, on the verge of producing an industrial strategy, can want to abandon the nascent bioethanol industry in this country entirely. What will he do to stop that?

Space Industry

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I join everybody else in congratulating the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) not just on securing the debate, but on the quality of the debate and the leadership he has shown as chair of the APPG for space. We have had an excellent debate and a lot of shared issues have been brought up. I was struck by the range of different parts of the country in which the space industry is thriving. It is important to understand and acknowledge that.

The hon. Member for Wyre Forest set out the case for the space industry. I do not think I need to repeat any of that, but he spoke about understanding the economic and productivity benefits, as well as the huge benefits to humanity, of satellite technology; how we can mitigate the challenges that the world faces through space; the opportunities for other sectors, such as finance, that are increasingly becoming part of this landscape; and the role of Government as a supporter of space but also as a customer. All those points were very well made. He also talked about the work that UKspace does—it is right that we acknowledge the importance of that organisation—and about businesses from the SMEs to the larger companies, and the ecosystem as a whole.

I will come to a number of points, but one of the most important is that, in a couple of weeks, we will have our industrial strategy, which will set out and prioritise the sectors in advanced manufacturing that are crucial and where this Government intend to turbocharge growth. I cannot reveal the contents of the strategy, but I can say that we are on the verge of having it, and I hope that everyone here will appreciate what is in it.

Later this year, we will hopefully see, for the first time, British satellites on British rockets launching from Scotland. I am putting in my bid to be there, and everyone else is welcome to do the same. I imagine it will be quite a thing to see; it is very exciting. We will also host a global space finance summit at the end of this year. I hope that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest will be able to come to that event, which I think will be an important and useful opportunity to bring in the finance element of this debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) talked about Jodrell Bank and the Lovell telescope, and made important points about STEM education— I think pretty much everyone mentioned the importance of that. We have set up Skills England and, through our industrial strategy, we are working with the Department for Education to ensure that we tilt towards the courses that we need. Of course, STEM is key to that. My hon. Friend was also right to talk about the north-west cluster.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) talked about Goonhilly and the importance of that resource to the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) talked about that, too, and about the importance of Spaceport Cornwall and the skills there.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about Northern Ireland, as he always does. He was right to highlight the importance of the defence and aerospace industry there and, in that context, the continued importance of the debate on Spirit. I think we can all be grateful that we were in this place when he said, “Beam me up, Scotty!”—I enjoyed that contribution.

As the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) said, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) hit the nail directly on the head, as he always does in relation to many different sectors. He talked about going down the Boulby mine, the cluster in the north-east and the importance of avoiding the valley of death scenario that we face in many different sectors, where we get brilliant research but do not quite manage to bring it to commercialisation, it goes offshore and we lose all that talent. Those were all very good points, well made.

I was asked by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest about the national debris mission. It is going through the next stage of approvals and is a live procurement, so I cannot comment on it, but I wanted to ensure that I responded on that.

We have all talked about the importance of our space industry here in the UK. It is the largest in Europe by revenue, by number of companies and by workforce, and, as was mentioned, it is one of the most productive parts of our economy, with almost 2.5 times the average labour productivity. As the Minister for Industry, in the past year I have had the opportunity to visit and speak to many of those fast-growing space companies. They include homegrown talents such as Space Forge, which I am sure several of us will have met, and BAE Systems, and companies from overseas that have chosen the UK as one of their homes, including ClearSpace and Lockheed Martin. I have had the opportunity to talk to them about their plans for growth and how the Government can support their ambitions, as well as engaging with the trade associations UKspace and ADS, which so keenly support our industry.

As I said, the industrial strategy will come out in a couple of weeks. It will be a 10-year long-term plan. One of the eight growth-driving sectors that we have identified is advanced manufacturing, and we will use the strategy to engage with businesses on the complex areas of policy that we need to address, including finance, planning, energy costs and grid connections, so that we can promote long-term growth.

We want to help more space companies to industrialise, and that means better access to finance and more strategic ways of working with individual space companies. It also means concentrating our efforts on a more targeted portfolio of space capabilities. In other words, we already do this well, so let us take full advantage of that and get a competitive edge. For example, we know that space technologies and services play a vital role in climate action, maritime domain monitoring, telecommunications, the gig economy and apps that rely on persistent positioning. The UK is already strong in the services and applications that space technology enables. Ensuring that space companies can overcome the complex and capital-intensive challenges to excel in these areas will be key to growing the industry now and in the future.

We also want to create a more resilient supply chain, which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest talked about, while improving regulations, which will be needed to enable more activities in our space industry. Of course, DBT does a lot of work in this policy area, but other Departments are important too—I will come to the challenges in a minute. Of course, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology takes a lead, and the MOD, which published its new strategic defence review last week, is clear that being first in NATO means accelerating and enhancing our military space capability, so it recognises that there is more to do. We need to go further and faster, especially working with commercial companies. Towards the end of this year, all Departments will publish clear delivery plans that set out their priorities for space, their capabilities and exactly how we will work to deliver those priorities.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the challenges that he had in government navigating the many industries that are responsible for space. We inherited that challenge and have not entirely resolved it. So many Departments have an interest in space for legitimate, very good reasons. A group of Ministers has met to talk about the challenge, and we are planning what to do. I am sure that as soon as we have anything to say on that front, we will come back to the hon. Gentleman. I recognise the challenge. So many things are happening in space, so many aspects of our lives are affected by it, and so many Ministers have a huge interest in it. That will always be the way, and we need to navigate that in a way that enables us to be laser focused on our priorities. We have a clear strategy and we are very ambitious about what we want to achieve.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing a debate on this topic. We are absolutely committed to supporting our fantastic space industry, and are already investing in and supporting it. Last month, I celebrated Space Forge’s latest fundraising round, in which it secured £22.6 million. I was pleased to announce the opening of OHB’s new base in Bristol at the Farnborough international airshow—I think the hon. Gentleman was there. Earlier this week, I announced the Government’s support for a space industry partnership between BAE Systems in the UK and Hanwha Systems in South Korea, which is a massive step forward for one of the UK’s leading companies. We have really strong examples of international partnerships, the financial impact and the foreign impact, showcasing the power of our space industry to reach out around the world.

[Andrew George]

The Minister mentions the importance of international partnerships. In the context of the unpredictable environment in which negotiations take place, particularly with regard to trade with the US, what conversations have taken place between the UK Government and NASA? It is clear that a lot of UK companies, large or small, depend on ensuring that such relationships and future contracts are well founded.

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. NASA and the European Space Agency are both really important in terms of ensuring that our companies get the contracts they need. We will work with our American counterparts on that. My focus with our American counterparts in recent weeks has been more on the UK’s steel industry, automotive industry and aerospace industry, up to a point, but I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s point about NASA. Of course, we need to support our companies in getting contracts, and we work closely together.

We can have different views about the future of space. Tim Marshall’s great book on the future of geography, which I have read, talks about space not in the context of a leap into a beautiful, unknown world, but as a continuation of the power struggles here in the UK, so it is important to work collaboratively across all kinds of agencies if we are to find a way forward. The spokesperson for the Lib Dems, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), talked about how we navigate the legal future of space. That is an important point, and why we are supporting the space industry by giving an 11% uplift to the UK Space Agency’s 2025-26 budget. I hope that increase shows the direction of travel. Our trade strategy will come out in a couple of weeks. The world of exports is important to our space industry, and we need to ensure that we support advanced manufacturing and space through our trade strategy.

I hope Members are reassured of how important we see the space industry as being. We see it as one of the key growth-driving sectors. The industrial strategy will set out exactly what we are going to do. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire talked about the risk of losing world-class talent and industry from these shores; he will be an expert in that, as so much of it happened under the previous Government. We are trying to ensure that we attract and keep people here, and build young people’s talents to develop a space industry that we can all be proud of. Watch this space in terms of the industrial strategy; I look forward to coming back and talking about it.

British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this debate, and I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on the BCSSS. There are a lot of hon. Members in attendance. Many have long associations with the coalfield communities they represent, and I know that this is an incredibly important issue to many people across the country. It is also a matter of great importance to me, and I am pleased to be speaking to the House following a meeting I had with the BCSSS trustees this afternoon.

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

When we speak of the mineworkers’ pension, we speak of everyone who has sustained our pits, such as my constituents Anthony Peck, who joined the scheme aged 17, and Kevin Jowle, automatically enrolled when he became a deputy, without any consultation. Does the Minister agree that everyone deserves a fair pension and compensation for the £3.2 billion that the Treasury has received to date?

[Sarah Jones]

We believe that everybody deserves a fair pension, and I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I want to set out where we have got to.

As Members will be aware, this Labour Government committed in their manifesto to ending the injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and I was incredibly proud to deliver on that commitment last October. We committed to transferring the investment reserve fund back to members and reviewing the surplus arrangements so that the mineworkers who powered our country receive a fairer pension. I was incredibly proud that, after only three months in power, the Chancellor announced the transfer of that investment reserve fund at the Budget in October. This was the action of a Labour Government overturning an historic injustice that the previous Government had failed to act on.

[Graeme Downie]

Does the Minister agree that it is thanks to campaigners such as Bobby Clelland in my constituency and to the local party that we have managed to succeed in having the MPS move towards a resolution and seeing that money being paid out to those communities in the coalfields in my constituency? It is also thanks to people such as Alan Kenney in my constituency, who is leading the campaign in Scotland on the BCSSS. I hope that she will be able to give us some good news. Does she agree that this is thanks to those former miners who are always standing up for their communities and still fighting now for the justice they deserve?

[Sarah Jones]

Of course my hon. Friend is right. I want to thank everybody who has campaigned and worked for so long on the mineworkers’ pension and everybody who has been in touch with me and with colleagues across the House on the BCSSS. One of the most humbling events I have been to in my political life was speaking to former miners following the announcement on the mineworkers’ pension. I am incredibly grateful to the many people who have campaigned and who are getting in touch and showing us how important this is. Of course, we completely understand it.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

This is a new topic to me personally. I was contacted by a constituent whose late husband, a good friend of mine, Michael Green, worked for British Coal at the time. He too was passionate that this money should be returned to the miners. Does the Minister agree that we need to get on with this and get this to happen as quickly as possible?

[Sarah Jones]

We are certainly moving as fast as we can. I will explain where the process has got to, and I hope that Members will be reassured.

The transfer of £1.5 billion from the mineworkers’ pension boosted pensions by 32%, which was an average increase of £29 a week for each member. The hon. Member for Ashfield made the point that this is about putting money not just into people’s pockets but into local communities, and that is incredibly important. I also understand that in the context of the BCSSS in exactly the same way. My officials are working closely with the trustees of the mineworkers’ pension on the review of the future surplus sharing arrangements, and we hope to come forward with proposals and reach an agreement on that soon. Having worked closely with the coalfield communities on the delivery of the mineworkers’ pension, I completely recognise the strength of feeling on the BCSSS.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I want to place on record my sincere thanks on behalf of my constituents and the people who work in the mining industry across the country for the fantastic work the Minister is doing in relation to the finances in the mineworkers’ pension scheme. Might she be able to inform the House what the main differences are between the MPS receiving the money and the challenges with regard to the BCSSS?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words, and I will do exactly that and set out what the challenges and the differences are.

Having a process of work ongoing with the mineworkers’ scheme and working out how we will do surplus sharing, we are now working on the BCSSS and what we do in that space, even though it was not a manifesto commitment. I wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in February and secured his agreement to undertake a similar review of the BCSSS, and that review is now well under way. The schemes are not identical. They are different, and the main difference is that there are currently no surplus sharing arrangements in the BCSSS. That is because they were removed in 2015 following two deficit valuations.

The situation at that time meant that members were unlikely to realise any increases to their pensions for a decade or more, and the Government risked having to find new money to fund pensions. Changes were therefore made, and an agreement was reached with the then Government that bonus pension increases would be paid for three years and that the scheme would invest so as to ensure that pensions could be paid, with the aim of returning the reserve to the Government in 2033. That is the main difference.

I met the BCSSS trustees, to whom I am grateful. We are working well together and will continue to do so. I first met them in April, during which I shared my determination to move at pace—that is a Government saying, isn’t it? But we will genuinely move as fast as we can on the review and to start that process for the Government and trustees, and we jointly commissioned analysis from the Government Actuary to inform our decision making.

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I have heard from many of my constituents affected by the BCSSS, and many are advanced in age so there is a real need for speed. I appreciate the Minister setting out how committed she is to getting this sorted as quickly as possible and would appreciate hearing about any further things she could do to expedite it.

[Sarah Jones]

I completely appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments. I think everybody in this House shares them, and I feel that strongly and am committed to doing exactly that.

We have recently received the analysis from the Government Actuary on the options for making a transfer to scheme members. Because we received that information, I had a meeting with the trustees today to hear their views on that analysis. At that meeting, I committed to move at speed. My officials are meeting the Treasury tomorrow. We are going to put a recommendation to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I made a commitment to meet the trustees again before the summer break so we continue to make progress as fast as we can.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I am proud to have supported the BCSSS campaign since long before I became an MP, and I have continued to support it. I pay tribute to the campaigners in my constituency, including ex-miner Tony Jones, who gave me a badge that I wear with pride. I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement with BCSSS trustees and us as coalfield MPs. However, many of my constituents are often elderly, in poor health and desperate for a resolution. Given that the investment reserve is already held within the scheme and its return would not require any new public spending, will the Minister continue to work hard to ensure that these deferred pensions are rightly returned as quickly as possible to their rightful owners?

[Sarah Jones]

That is certainly what we are working to do. Because the two schemes are slightly different, the way the Treasury has to interact and think about these things is slightly different, but we have done this Government Actuary process, and we met the trustees today. We will now put our recommendation to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—I know that a lot of my hon. Friends are talking to him about this issue whenever they can. While I have a desire to move at speed, I hope colleagues will appreciate that we also need to ensure that we get this absolutely right, and that any spending decisions are carefully considered, especially given the role that the Government have as the guarantor to both the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the BCSSS. I want to assure all hon. Members that I am doing all I can to reach an agreement and improve the conditions for members as soon as possible.

[Lee Anderson]

The Minister has been good today, actually, at the Dispatch Box, so I thank her for that. A lot of positive things have come out of this Adjournment debate. I have one question: is the scheme running at a surplus and if so, by how much?

[Sarah Jones]

I will not give figures, but the scheme is doing well. That is in part because of the trustees and the actions they have taken, and the investments and process they have undertaken. While the 2015 situation caused there to be a change in the way it was managed, it is now running well, and people can be reassured about that. I recognise that for many in coalfield communities, delivery on the mineworkers’ pension scheme has only heightened the sense of injustice about the BCSSS—I hear and feel that and am determined to take action on it.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

For my 719 BCSSS members, with the scheme looking quite healthy now, does the Minister have that oomph to push it forward and expedite it as quickly as possible to get them justice?

[Sarah Jones]

I certainly have oomph, yes, and I am working as fast as I can on this. I will not talk now about the wider support that we are offering people in our former coalfield communities, but a whole raft of Government interventions are there to support people.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituent Robert Ferguson echoes many of the points made by the constituent of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) about the difference between families who worked side by side, whereby one benefits and one does not. I know that the Minister has a rather full portfolio—there are many other things that I constantly nag her about—but will we wait for the Treasury, which is not known for its speed in making decisions, or could interim arrangements be put in place to give some of the surplus back to the BCSSS, or something that allows a demonstration of progress while we wait for the Chief Secretary to come to a decision?

[Sarah Jones]

I would not want to give the impression that this decision is waiting on the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to say yes. That is not the case. We have to go through the correct processes to get it over the line, because it was not in the manifesto; it is a different scheme and we must go through the proper processes. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that.

It would probably cause more trouble than not to give part but not all of the surplus back, because people would wonder why we were doing that. We want to resolve this properly and quickly. The two outcomes that the hon. Member for Ashfield referred to, and which the trustees want, are goals that we all share, but we have to do this properly by going through the right processes and ensuring that we are not putting words into the mouths of our Treasury officials and colleagues before it is right to do so. My commitment is to work at pace on this. As I said, my officials are meeting the Treasury tomorrow, and we are meeting the trustees before the summer.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I have two quick points. First, as the Minister carries out those meetings—I wish her well—will she consider meeting some of us from coalfield communities, to facilitate that conversation? Secondly, she has just touched on the industrial strategy. She knows my views on the BCSSS and its importance to many people in Newcastle-under-Lyme. That industrial strategy must be felt by people not just in Newcastle-under-Lyme but up and down our country, particularly in coalfield communities. As it is finalised, I urge her to give a thought to us—that is really important. I hope that she will find time to meet us soon.

[Sarah Jones]

I am always very happy to meet my colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend. I am very happy to meet anybody in receipt of or campaigning on the BCSSS. My door is always open. He is right, of course, that our industrial strategy needs to do something that we have not had for so long: it needs to grow our economy across the country, not just in certain areas. We want the industrial strategy to do just that.

I will end by saying that, as politicians, we know that people find it very hard to trust us and what we will deliver, in part because they have been let down so many times over so many years, but I hope that they have noted our delivery of the mineworkers’ pension scheme within three months of coming into office. I understand the frustration and need for speed because the people concerned are getting older. We know that many people passed away before they could get the mineworkers’ pension scheme. The same is true during the long time that we have been talking about these issues. Now, I hope that people can see that we mean it when we look to work at pace on the BCSSS.

[Adam Jogee]

I am mindful of the fact that hon. Members do not have to be present at Adjournment debates, but does it not say everything that there is not a single Conservative MP here this evening—although there is a former one—to discuss this issue of importance not just to Newcastle-under-Lyme but to the whole United Kingdom?

[Sarah Jones]

I will let anybody watching the debate draw their own conclusions on that front, but it is there for all to see.

I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield for securing the debate and many hon. Friends for their representations. The Labour Government are absolutely committed to addressing the BCSSS. I look forward to updating Members on our progress towards improving pensions for all our former miners and correcting these historical injustices.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 23 April. Before outlining the provisions, I will briefly provide some context. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning—OPRED—minimises the offshore sector’s impact on the environment by controlling air emissions and discharges to sea, and by reducing disturbance over the life cycle of operations, from seismic surveys through to post-decommissioning monitoring.

OPRED recoups the eligible costs of its regulatory functions from industry in the oil and gas offshore sector, to which I shall refer as the offshore sector, rather than from the taxpayer. OPRED’s recoverable costs are covered in two ways: first, by using the fees regulations; and secondly, by five charging schemes that do not require legislative change and will be amended administratively.

OPRED’s annual fees income is around £6.7 million, recovered from about 100 companies. Currently, the fees that it charges are based on hourly rates of £201 for environmental specialists and £104 for non-specialists. Environmental specialists are technical staff who carry out the functions of the Secretary of State, and non-specialists are support staff.

The current hourly rates have been in force since June 2022. Having reviewed the cost base, OPRED concluded that the existing rates need to be revised to reflect today’s costs for regulatory services. The fees regulations will therefore amend the charging provisions by increasing the hourly rate to £210 for environmental specialists and to £114 for non-specialists. OPRED’s fees are determined by adding the recorded number of hours worked per person on cost-recoverable activities and multiplying them by the hourly rates for environmental specialists and non-specialists, respectively.

The new hourly rates were approved by His Majesty’s Treasury in December 2024 and were calculated in line with the Treasury’s “Managing public money” guidance. They cover the expenditure on all resources used by OPRED to support its activities, such as staff salaries, accommodation, IT and legal services. There is no formal requirement to consult on the proposed changes. However, OPRED informed the offshore sector of the planned revisions to the hourly rates in February 2025, and no representations were received. OPRED’s fees regime guidance will be revised to reflect the new hourly rates.

I conclude by emphasising that this revision to the hourly rates will allow OPRED to recover the eligible costs of providing regulatory services from those who benefit from them, rather than passing on the costs to the taxpayer. I hope that hon. Members will support this measure, and I commend the draft fees regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

Although it was unclear, I think the Opposition support these regulations. If they do, I am grateful. We do not need to replay the arguments about the dash to clean power, which is the only way to bring down our energy costs in the long term. We do not need to rehearse the fact that the North sea is a declining basin that has seen 70,000 job losses over the last few years.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Given the Government’s best case is that the UK economy will import gas, particularly from Norway, until 2050 and beyond, does the Minister not concede that, since we are going to be using gas, it would be better for our balance of payments if we produced that gas in this country, even from a declining basin?

[Sarah Jones]

Gas is still being produced in this country, and that will continue for many years to come, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We could rehearse these arguments, but I am not sure they are pertinent to these draft regulations. I will just celebrate the fact that we are now the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and that the economy, more broadly, is on the up—long may that continue. I thank the Opposition for their support for the draft regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

British Steel: Special Measures Update

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

The Government committed to updating Parliament on British Steel every four weeks for the duration of the period of special measures being applied under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025.

Government landmark achievements and actions

Since the oral ministerial statement on British Steel on 22 April in the House of Commons, and the repeat statement on 24 April in the Lords, the Minister in the Lords—my noble Friend Baroness Gustafsson—and I have written to a number of Members to respond to specific questions. I can also confirm that work is under way on developing an impact assessment and on bringing forward regulations under section 7 of the Act, which allows the Secretary of State to introduce a compensation scheme for steel undertakings affected by the exercise of powers under the Act. The Secretary of State will also reply to correspondence from the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee to enable ongoing scrutiny of the Government’s use of these powers.

We have prioritised securing the future of the UK steel sector since our first days in office. As we have shown with the passing of the Act on 12 April, in what was a unique and unprecedented situation, we will not hesitate to take steps to safeguard the future of UK steelmaking, protecting jobs and supply chains.

On 8 May we reached agreement on an economic prosperity deal with the United States, which will save thousands of well-paid, high-skilled jobs that are vital for our economy. For the steel sector, this deal will see the US remove 25% s232 tariffs on steel for UK exporters.

Yesterday, 19 May, as part of the substantial package agreed at the EU summit, we also agreed to work towards linking the UK and EU emissions trading systems, creating the conditions to exempt UK exporters from the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM—something the steel industry has been seeking, to lower the cost of decarbonisation, avoid competitive distortions and boost market confidence. The European Commission has also confirmed that, in a specific product category subject to the EU steel safeguard measure, it will restore the UK’s country-specific steel quota to historic levels and that this will be reflected in a post-2026 regime. This will ensure that UK producers, including British Steel—the UK’s largest producer of these goods—will continue to be able to export tariff free at historic trading levels.

British Steel Ltd

Our intervention in British Steel under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act has enabled us to secure the raw materials required to maintain a two-blast-furnace operation in Scunthorpe for the coming months. The redundancy consultation initiated by British Steel’s owners, Jingye, has also been cancelled, removing the immediate risk to 2,700 jobs.

Government officials remain on site in Scunthorpe. Our priorities are continuing production, remedying critical health and safety issues, and stabilising operations.

We recognise the considerable interest from Members across both Houses regarding the funding that will be required for the Scunthorpe site. We have been clear that all funding will be drawn from existing budgets, within the spending envelope set out by the Government in the 2025 spring statement. As the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made clear, the UK’s fiscal rules remain non-negotiable.

To date we have provided £94 million for working capital. This covers items such as raw materials, salaries and addressing unpaid bills, including for SMEs in the supply chain. This does not take into account future revenue. The Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for 2025-26 will reflect the financial support that the Department has given to British Steel.

We have also been clear that there will need to be investment to secure British Steel’s long-term future—including private investment—in modernisation. That position has not changed. Work continues at pace to develop the optimal policy and strategy approach.

Steel strategy

This Government stand by our manifesto commitment to spend up to £2.5 billion to rebuild the UK’s steel sector, in addition to the £500 million we have committed to Tata Steel UK for the transformation of Port Talbot. This is being delivered in part though the National Wealth Fund. The National Wealth Fund is operationally independent, and financing is already accessible to projects that meet the investment principles. Companies across the UK are already engaging with them on projects within the steel sector.

We continue to develop our thinking on the steel strategy. The recent developments in the UK steel industry, including at British Steel, have underscored the need for a steel strategy that represents a long-term vision for a revitalised and sustainable industry and the actions needed to get there. Understanding how the future of British Steel fits into this is crucial and will take some time to work through.

I have engaged extensively with the steel sector in recent months, visiting sites across the country and participating in roundtable discussions with producers, buyers and metal recyclers. This has given me an insight into the emerging opportunities and significant challenges that the UK steel industry faces. I have been left with no doubt that the sector is at a critical juncture, and it cannot afford to wait any longer for decisive action.

That is why we are now looking at what actions we could take under the steel strategy. We sought views on the issues that we know are important to the sector in the Green Paper we published on 16 February, such as electricity prices. We are also looking at ways to increase demand for domestic steel, including through public procurement. We are thinking about the best ways to defend the sector from challenging global market conditions on UK producers and unfair trading practices, and how to support the sector through the transition to greener steelmaking to deliver economic growth. Steelmaking is essential for our modern economy, supporting jobs and living standards in the UK’s industrial heartlands. We are confident that steel has a bright future in the UK and the full strategy will be published later this year.

We will provide a further update on British Steel to Parliament in June.

[HCWS649]

Automotive Manufacturing: Employment

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and to have this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing the debate and on her words; she gave a very helpful summary of the importance of the automotive sector to the UK. She is absolutely right about the number of jobs it creates and the amount that it brings into the economy, as well as the importance of Toyota in her area, which is not far from mine—I know how important Toyota is. Other Members have talked about the importance of the factories in their constituencies, stabilising whole economies through their supply chains. I thank the hon. Member for Reigate for her valid points.

I start by saying that we need to deal with the world as we find it, and the world we find today is a difficult one in terms of tariffs. I will talk about those in more detail. There are many challenges facing the automotive sector. However, as nobody has mentioned it, I will champion the trade deal with India that we secured yesterday. This is good for the automotive industry in the UK, in particular JLR and our high-end manufacturing —they are going to win from this deal.

Automotive tariffs into India are historically incredibly high at 100%, and we have negotiated bringing them down to 10% under a new quota system. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade said that we could see 22,000 high-end cars from the UK being sold into the Indian market. That is very substantial for those high-end vehicle manufacturers, and hopefully it is something that everyone will welcome. We worked with the automotive industry as we developed our relationship with India and came to this deal, so we are confident that it is a good deal for the industry.

Members rightly pointed to the challenging issues of the day in their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) and I spoke yesterday about those issues. We will continue to do so, just as she will continue to champion JLR, the number of people it employs and the importance of that site. I will come on to our approach to the US and what we are doing, but I hope that we will continue to have those conversations about JLR. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) also talked about the importance of her area in the supply chain, quoting companies such as Lavender’s, which is so important in JLR’s production. I will say more about our approach to the US in a minute.

Of course, it is about not just the US but the rapid growth of China as a major car manufacturer, high energy costs—as Members have rightly said—and the transition to electric vehicles. That has led to lower sales and volumes of production, which in turn has put pressure on the supply chain, increasing the risk of job losses across the sector. This Government are not prepared to sit back and leave industry to face those challenges alone. I would say that I speak to the automotive industry every week, but often more regularly, and since the introduction of tariffs I have been having regular roundtables with the whole affected sector and talking in detail about what needs to be done. We are determined to do what is necessary to help our car industry to weather the storm and achieve the long-term growth that we all want to see.

Where manufacturers are telling us that there are policy hurdles, we are listening, responding and helping industry to overcome them. That is why we launched the zero emission vehicle mandate consultation back in December, and in April we announced significant changes to the mandate, which I think everyone in this place welcomes, to ease the path for the automotive sector’s transition to electric vehicles. We have increased the flexibilities within the mandate for manufacturers up to 2030, smoothing the transition towards zero emission vehicles. We are allowing hybrid cars, such as the Toyota Corolla and the Nissan e-POWER, to be sold until 2035 to ease the transition and give industry more time to prepare. British supercar brands, such as McLaren and Aston Martin, have been exempted altogether from the 2030 phase-out date.

Crucially, we are also boosting demand for electric vehicles by improving charging infrastructure—an issue that several Members mentioned. The current statistic on charging infrastructure is that there are now 76,500 public charging points, and the National Audit Office recently found that we were on track to deliver 300,000 charging points. However, I hear what Members are saying, and I heard what the hon. Member for Reigate said about the need to go further. Of course, we are working with our colleagues in the Department for Transport to do just that.

Moving on to the US trade deal, Members will have seen speculation in the Financial Times this morning that we are very close to a deal. Of course, we cannot comment on that, but we know that we are in a good starting position. We have good relationships with our colleagues in the US, and the Business Secretary has been having regular conversations with them; the Prime Minister has also been talking to the President.

We know that tariffs are a real concern for the sector, and we saw JLR temporarily having to pause shipments to the US last month. From the outset, we have been talking to the industry and playing back our approach to them all the way along. They very much support our calm and cool-headed response, as well as the discussions that we are having with the US. That is what industry wants us to do, and that is exactly what we are doing.

At the beginning of April, we launched a request for input to hear from business about their concerns and assessments of what the next steps need to be. We are working through all those responses now. Following that request for input—it was not a consultation; for some reason we have to call it a “request for input”, but I do not know why—we are looking at the feedback and my colleagues are continuing to talk to the industry every day.

We will always act in the best interests of UK consumers and businesses, and throughout the last few weeks we have rightly focused on negotiating a deal. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury mentioned the letter from the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), and other Members mentioned preparations in the event that there is not a deal. Obviously, our focus is on getting that deal, but we would not be doing what we should if we did not also look at the available options in the event that there was not a deal. Of course the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee has suggested some options and, as I say, we are considering all options in the event that there is not a deal. However, we firmly believe that we are in a good position. We have a good relationship with the United States and we want to secure a deal as quickly as we can.

In addition to trying to achieve a reduction of tariffs, we are really investing in the automotive industry. In the Budget last year, we committed over £2 billion of capital in research and development funding until 2030, as has been mentioned, for zero emission vehicle manufacturing and the supply chains, and a further £300 million to drive the uptake of electric vehicles.

This new funding will support cutting-edge research and the scale-up of innovative zero emission vehicle technologies. It will also unlock capital investment in ZEVs, batteries and the wider supply chain. And that comes on top of the great work being supported by our Automotive Transformation Fund, which enables British brands and car manufacturers to benefit from a globally competitive supply chain for electric vehicles and their batteries. That has given much confidence to the sector and helped to secure major investment in the UK —including, of course, the £4 billion investment by Tata in its new gigafactory in Somerset. We also want future initiatives to work alongside the National Wealth Fund as part of a comprehensive offer to other big-hitting international investors.

Several Members raised the issue of skills, and they were absolutely right to do so. We recognise that we have a skills gap, and we need to ensure that we can fill it through the development of the industrial strategy, which will come out in a few weeks’ time. We are working with the Department for Education and with Skills England to look at the skills gaps across a whole range of industries in the UK, including advanced manufacturing and automotive, to see what the gaps are and to see how we can tilt funding to help to fill them. That is exactly the work that we are doing. Apprenticeships are also incredibly important in this space. There are some brilliant apprenticeship models out there in our car manufacturers. Of course we will continue to support those models. We are also making the apprenticeship levy more flexible, so that a wider range of people can use such models.

The hon. Member for Reigate mentioned East Surrey college, which I know; it is very good, and I am very pleased to see that it is helping in this space. She also raised the level 7 apprenticeships issue, which I recognise. We are working on all these issues in the run-up to the industrial strategy and the publications that will go alongside it.

Skills have to be at the heart of this agenda. We do not just want to grow the automotive industry. It is an industry in transition, so we must ensure that we are transitioning skills and creating the workforce of the future that we want to see. So, Members are right to raise these issues. Of course we are working very hard on them, and I hope that we will have much more to say about them shortly.

The hon. Member for Reigate also mentioned a couple of tax issues—the employee share ownership scheme and the double-cab pick-up vehicles. We have no plans to change those things at the moment, but I hear what she says about the pressures that exist. What we are doing through the run-up to the spending review is looking at how we can support the industry more widely. How do we increase demand, how do we provide support, how do we help to fund, and how do we break down further barriers? So, she is right to raise those issues and of course we continue to look at them. There will also be technical consultation later this year on the employee car ownership scheme, which she might want to look out for. However, I have heard the points she makes. We are currently in a period when we are developing plans but are unable to speak about them, because we cannot yet confirm what the spending review will tell us. However, I hope that the industrial strategy and the spending review will give her reassurance that we are very serious about the automotive sector and will support it in the future.

In the run-up to the publication of the industrial strategy, we are engaging with the sector on very complex issues such as access to finance or the planning system when it comes to electric vehicle charging infrastructure. We are looking at everything.

Of course, all Members rightly mentioned energy prices. I am acutely aware of how high our energy costs are in this sector compared with other sectors. Our industrial energy costs doubled under the last Government, and we want to take action to tackle that. Of course, we are pushing for clean energy by 2030 to ensure that energy bills come down in the long term and that we have the stability to ensure that we never again suffer a massive shock, as we did when the war in Ukraine began. However, we know that we need to do more. I am working at pace to do that. I hope that, through the processes that we have coming up in the next few weeks, we will see movement; but I completely understand the situation. I am working with lots of sectors, including ceramics, chemicals and automotive. Everybody has the same challenge, and we are looking to see what we can do about that.

To conclude, the automotive sector is incredibly important to our country. I appreciate Members’ caring so much about those high-quality jobs and supply chains. We know we need to upskill and reskill the workforce, provide the industry with support for the transition, and build our strengths in new technology, artificial intelligence software, connected and autonomous vehicles—which comes under this remit—and of course, our off-road vehicles as well, which we are supporting. The automotive sector will be at the heart of our industrial strategy, and we will create the right climate for the industry to thrive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kanishka Narayan (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to include the chemicals sector within the industrial strategy.

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

The industrial strategy has identified eight key growth-driving sectors that will be the arrowhead of our economic success, but of course they cannot succeed without the critical supply chains and foundational industries that underpin them. We are looking at all those foundational industries, including the chemicals industry, to see what the barriers to growth are, what challenges they face, and how can we overcome them through our strategy.

[Kanishka Narayan]

I very much welcome the Minister’s recognition of the chemicals sector’s contribution as a foundational sector and an anchor employer in constituencies such as mine; we have the Dow site there. What can we do to support the deeply integrated supply chains across the UK and Europe that the chemicals sector, and Dow in particular, relies on?

[Sarah Jones]

I do not want to underestimate the challenges that the chemical sector faces. Between 2021 and 2024, UK chemicals manufacturing fell in real terms by about a third. We are working to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU. We want to build exports and investment opportunities and reduce barriers to trade. Conversations are at an early stage, so I will not go into specifics, but we are certainly working to help the chemicals industry.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What assessment has the Minister made of the benefits that inclusion of the chemicals sector among the eight sectors could bring for our national security and our pharmaceutical sector? How can all regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland benefit from this sector?

[Sarah Jones]

When we look at the eight sectors that we are trying to turbocharge through the industrial strategy, we see that the chemicals sector underpins so many other sectors. We need to make sure that we protect it. As I have just said, chemicals manufacturing has fallen by nearly a third over the past three years; we need to turn that around. We are looking at what we can do to break down barriers and make improvements—for example, on the cost of energy. That is part of the mix when it comes to making sure that we are secure in the future.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to support the hospitality industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)]

T6. Can the Minister assure the steel communities of south Wales that they will receive a substantial share of the £2.5 billion steel fund?

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

My hon. Friend and several other Welsh colleagues have been talking to me about this. We renegotiated the deal with Port Talbot and the £500 million that goes alongside that. I had a good meeting this week with Blastr, which is looking to build an iron pellet plant at the Port Talbot site if possible, and we are trying to support that. Of course, our focus in recent weeks has been on Scunthorpe and British Steel, but the steel fund remains. The steel plan is still being worked on, which is very broad and hopes to lift the entire UK steel industry.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Sheen Uncovered is a clothing business in my constituency that the Secretary of State is welcome to visit any time. It has been significantly affected by the need to pay import duty up front, thanks to the Conservatives’ terrible Brexit deal, and that duty ranges between 6% and 12% and greatly impacts its cash flow. What are the Government doing to support businesses such as Sheen Uncovered to reduce the challenge of import costs?

Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op) (Urgent Question)]

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on the Government’s approach to reducing energy prices for energy-intensive industries.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)]

I relay my thoughts to the workers in my hon. Friend’s constituency, for whom I know this is a worrying time. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue. He is a tireless champion for workers and businesses in his constituency. We have spoken and will continue to speak regularly about these issues and the importance of the ceramics industry in his area in particular.

This Government recognise the challenges high energy prices pose to UK businesses. We know that the ceramics sector is particularly affected; my hon. Friend has raised the issue in Parliament on other occasions. The Government are working closely with Ceramics UK and local Stoke MPs to work out how we can support the sector.

For energy-intensive industries overall, our clean power 2030 target is the key to long-term sustainable price reductions. Clean home-grown energy is the best way to protect bill payers and boost Britain’s energy independence. We are already bringing energy costs for UK industries closer into line with other major economies through the British industry supercharger. That will fully exempt eligible firms, including some but by no means all of those in the ceramics sector, from certain costs linked to renewable energy policies, particularly those exposed to the high cost of electricity.

Using more electricity and less fossil fuel is the future for UK businesses. The latest advice from the Climate Change Committee expects electricity to meet 61% of industrial energy demand by 2040, so we are developing options to enable businesses to do that.

We are already taking action. When my hon. Friend raised this important issue in a Westminster Hall debate in March, I noted:

“We are working on how to remove undeveloped, speculative programmes from the grid connection queue and prioritise others.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 109WH.]

Just last month, we announced pro-growth reforms to help unlock £40 million of mainly private investment a year in clean energy and infrastructure, so that so-called “zombie projects” will no longer hold up the queue for connection to the electricity grid.

We recognise that we need to support a range of energy-intensive industries, including industries such as ceramics, that are essential to our UK economy and our missions, for example to build the 1.5 million homes and the clean energy infrastructure products in which this Government are already investing. Following years of economic chaos and instability under the previous Administration, this Government are implementing a modern industrial strategy that will drive growth and the creation of good high-quality jobs in communities across the UK.

I look forward to continuing to work with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members from across the House. We are meeting next Wednesday and I hope to be able to progress things further at that stage.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the Minister for her engagement on this issue, because she has genuinely and authentically tried to look for a way forward. When my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and I had a meeting with the Minister six weeks ago, we warned her that other factories were going to fail, and we stand here following the closure of Moorcroft yesterday. She will be aware that other factories in Stoke-on-Trent are working on short time as a way of reducing costs so that they can put more money into meeting their ever-increasing energy bills.

I thank the Minister for the outline she has given, but she will know that we have previously talked about most of the things she has raised today, and they do not apply to the ceramics sector or to great swathes of the energy-industrial sector as a whole. The supercharger scheme does not work for the ceramics sector; indeed, ceramics companies end up having to subsidise other energy-intensive industries, because they are not part of the supercharger scheme. We have been told that we cannot see an exception to that. We have asked about the emissions trading scheme and free trade allowances and have been told that some are available for ceramics, but that does not go far enough to meet the demands we have today.

We have been constantly promised jam tomorrow, by the last Government as well as this one—well, jam is no good if you are dead, and the ceramics sector in Stoke-on-Trent is on life support. We are at a point where good manufacturing jobs done by proud people are falling away every month. This is not new: it started in 2019, with the closure of Dudson, and continued with the closure of Wade in 2022, Johnson Tiles in 2023 and Royal Stafford and now Moorcroft in 2025. The energy-intensive industries in this country are pivotal to manufacturing. If we see them fall away, manufacturing in this country will fall away.

I ask the Minister three very simple questions. Will she look at a wholesale change to the way in which we do subsidies and energy prices for energy-intensive industry in the short term, before GB Energy comes online? As well meaning as GB Energy is, it is too far away to help. Will she rule out specifically moving any policy costs on to gas costs? Gas is the big cost for the ceramics sector; electricity is a small proportion of what we do. Will she take the opportunity to make a clear commitment at the Dispatch Box, as the Secretary of State for Business and Trade just did when he talked about a sector falling on its knees? Ceramics is there. We do not need the same level of investment that steel does; we need a tiny fraction of it. Can we have it, and can we have it soon? If we have to come back here in six weeks, there will be no sector left to defend.

[Sarah Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend and recognise the challenge. We lost 1,250 jobs in the ceramics sector between 2015 and 2023. It has been a very sad decline, and we want to turn that around.

The whole point of an industrial strategy is to have a Government who are proactive in supporting our industries. We will not put extra cost on the ceramics industry; we are looking to see how we can help and support. My hon. Friend has my word on that. We are working on every single one of the suggested policy reforms in the package that Ceramics UK has put forward, and we will meet him next week to talk about these things.

I cannot make promises at the Dispatch Box on areas that are not my responsibility and rule out whole swathes of policy, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will not put extra costs on the ceramics industry. We are looking to do more and to support, and we will come back. I completely understand his point about the timing and the need to act quickly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Grangemouth, the Luton Vauxhall plant and now the Moorcroft pottery in Stoke-on-Trent—every single week, we hear of more job losses in energy-intensive industries and more British companies shutting up shop and laying off workers because of the toxic combination of high energy costs and this Chancellor’s devastating jobs tax. We have the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world. Just this week, INEOS told us in no uncertain terms that carbon taxes and high energy costs are killing off manufacturing in the UK.

This Government have been warned by Opposition Members, by the GMB this week and by Unite. This week, they were warned by none other than Tony Blair. What was their response? Advisers in No. 10 Downing Street picked up the phone and begged him to row back on what he said. They asked him to row back on what we all know to be true—what the Minister, Morgan McSweeney, apparently, and an increasing number of the Government’s own Back Benchers know to be true: the current approach to energy and net zero is doomed to fail, and voters are being asked to make financial sacrifices when they know that the impact on global emissions is minimal. That is at the heart of this madness.

This Government are wilfully destroying British industry in oil and gas, ceramics, chemicals and metals when they know that it will not make a difference to global emissions. We will not use any less oil and gas; neither will we use any less steel, cement, bricks or chemicals. We will just import those things from abroad, at greater cost to our economy and the climate and with British job losses added to the bargain. As the Government are led by an ideological zealot, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, and by a Prime Minister too weak to rein him in, we will continue down this path, and British workers will pay the price—in Aberdeen, in Grangemouth, in Luton, and today in Stoke.

Energy is not a silo; energy costs underpin growth, prosperity, competitiveness and living standards. Without cheap energy, our industries will not survive—British manufacturers cannot remain competitive—so what will the Minister do to prevent more British jobs being lost in energy-intensive industries in this country? Will she listen to the head of Unite, who says that working-class people are losing their jobs and that this Government have no plan to replace them? Will the Government end their mad ideological plan to shut down North sea operations? What will it take for Labour Back Benchers to wake up and realise that this ideological approach is crippling this country?

[Sarah Jones]

The Conservative party is hiding behind this new-found scepticism of net zero to conceal its complete failure to support and grow our foundational and manufacturing industries on its watch. On its watch, we lost 70,000 jobs in the North sea and 1,250 jobs in the ceramics sector, chemicals manufacturing fell by 30%, and we produced only 30% of the steel that we use in this country. The Conservative party’s record on this issue is shameful.

This Government have a completely different approach. We are developing the industrial strategy, which will support those foundational industries. We are looking to make sure we can reach net zero by 2030, in order to provide the economic and energy security we need. The last cost of living crisis was caused by our reliance on global gas prices, as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) knows, and as he occasionally says in some meetings when he flips and flops on his position on net zero. We will support manufacturing; we are developing our industrial strategy, which will be published in a few weeks’ time, and we are already providing more support to the energy-intensive industries through the energy supercharger than the previous Government did. We will act where the previous Government failed to act.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) is an enormous champion of the ceramics industry, and he is right to bring this question to the House today, but this issue is wider than simply the ceramics sector. Tata Steel has told our Committee that energy prices are the single biggest factor in its lack of competitiveness, and Nissan has told us that electricity prices at its plant in Sunderland are the highest of any Nissan plant in the world. We have recommended that the Government bring energy prices in line with our European competitors; can the Minister tell us today that she shares that ambition?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Committee Chair for his question. Of course this is a huge issue. Under the previous Government, industrial energy prices doubled, and as my right hon. Friend says, we have higher prices than many other countries. The 3,000 people who responded to our consultation on the industrial strategy said that energy, skills and access to finance were their top three issues, so we are absolutely aware of the issue. We are looking at what support we can provide and how we can make our country more competitive, both for the people who are looking to invest in the UK and for our existing manufacturing base.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats believe that the future of British industry and our national security depend on a serious and sustained commitment to renewable energy. We want to see far greater emphasis on clean energy sources, particularly solar, in order to reduce our dangerous reliance on fossil fuels, strengthen our energy security, and tackle fuel poverty by bringing down energy bills for households and businesses alike. In the face of Putin’s barbaric war in Europe and with Donald Trump’s reckless tariffs threatening fresh economic turmoil, we cannot afford to be complacent. The future of energy-intensive industries, not least our steel industry, hangs in the balance.

Steelmaking is not just an economic asset; it is of vital strategic importance to the UK. We need steel in order to build the infrastructure required for a sustainable, secure future, from wind turbines and railways to hospitals and homes. Without it, our ambitions for net zero and national resilience will collapse. As such, will the Government give a clear, unequivocal commitment to their net zero plans, and will they ensure that no option is off the table when it comes to safeguarding our steel industry and the future of British manufacturing?

[Sarah Jones]

I can give the hon. Gentleman reassurance that we are looking at all options to support the steel industry, which is foundational to our country. He makes the correct points about how important steel is to building our future, whether it be runways, homes or other infra- structure. We are looking at all options, and we have the steel plan, which will be coming out soon, and the £2.5 billion earmarked to support the steel industry.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

My constituency has many brilliant metal manufacturing companies that supply critical UK industries in defence, automotive and construction. However, many of them are struggling because the last Government left us with sky-high electricity prices and a dependence on foreign gas imports. Last month, I launched Make UK’s new “Electrify Industry” initiative in Parliament, which seeks to address this broad challenge. Can the Minister set out how the clean power 2030 action plan will make industrial energy costs cheaper and help us drive growth in the west midlands manufacturing industry?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her championing of her constituency. I am still to visit, and I must do that, because I know she has many exciting places for me to see. Electrifying industry is crucial. The Climate Change Committee has said that that is the route and that 61% of industry will need to be electrified. We need to make sure we do that. We are looking through the spending review process, as I am sure she would expect, at how we can support industries to make that change to electric and how we can help with some of the capital costs, which will lead to lower costs in the longer term. Making that leap can be difficult, and that is what we are looking at through the spending review.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Why is it better, according to the Government, to import gas from Norway instead of developing our own North sea gas fields?

[Sarah Jones]

The North sea fields are a declining basin. We lost 70,000 jobs under the previous Government. Something like only one in 10 of the licences that have been approved over recent years have actually amounted to anything, because of the difficulties of a declining basin. The impact on prices of a very small amount of the global mix coming from the North sea would be zero. It would not change a penny in the costs we would pay.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

When the previous Government looked at supporting energy-intensive industries, they included within the definition brewers, cider makers and wine makers, but not distillers, despite the fact that distillers use 17 kW per hour to make a litre of alcohol, compared with brewers which use just 0.5 kW per hour. As the Government consider what they will have to do to support energy-intensive industries such as distilling, will the Minister consider that the Scotch whisky industry in particular is critical to the maintenance of economic activity and good- quality jobs in some of the most remote and economically fragile communities in this country?

[Sarah Jones]

We are obviously keen to do what we can to support the Scottish whisky industry. I have been to see it and understand how important it is. The definitions of energy-intensive industries were developed under the previous Government, and we have no immediate plans to change those, but I will take away the right hon. Gentleman’s point and look into it.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On net zero, I think there is a national consensus on making the environment better, creating green jobs and improving energy security, but will the Minister recognise that for many people, consumers and companies out there—particularly small businesses, by the way; it is not all about large ones—there is too much happening, too soon and too fast? Rather than having regressive and punitive taxes on industry and small businesses, there should be more education and more incentives to change consumer and company behaviour.

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. We have a national consensus that we need to act, and I think the population are with us on that. They understand that we need to make sure we have a planet for our children and our grandchildren and that we need to do everything we can. As was said this week, we want to tread lightly on people’s lives, and of course we do not want to inflict regressive and punitive taxation. We want to make sure we are supporting industry and business, and we are looking at how we can help to incentivise the changes that we need to see.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

Despite Scotland’s growing abundance of potentially cheap renewable energy, businesses in Scotland’s energy sector are dealt a double blow, whereby energy-intensive businesses in the renewables supply chain are hammered by high energy costs in production and extortionate transmission charges. When the Minister looks at this problem, as her colleague told me he would the other day, will she bear in mind that this is entirely linked to the high cost of producing energy and all the other ways in which the current energy market model serves Scotland poorly?

[Sarah Jones]

I think it was probably the Minister for Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who gave that assurance to the hon. Gentleman, and he is looking at all these issues. We have a very complex energy system. We are trying to make it as cost-effective as we can, and sustainable in the long term, to give us the energy security that we all need. I am sure my hon. Friend will continue to look at these issues.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

A vital ingredient of any net zero policy is an understanding of the word “net”. Ultimately, we are going to have to grapple with technology that we have had for over a century to remove carbon directly from the air, aren’t we?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

We are happy to look at a range of options. The whole point of the clean energy plan is that we are using a very diverse range of interventions, some of which are more high-tech and for the future, and some of which are well established. We need that mix.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Given the huge economic and environmental effects of burning fossil fuels, it is clear that the future of energy has to be clean, green, cheap renewables, plus energy efficiency. All of us who care about fact-based, truth-based politics should call out the outrageous misinformation from those who suggest that net zero is the reason for high energy prices, when it clearly is not. Gas prices have gone through the roof in recent years, and we all know why: because of Putin’s outrageous invasion of Ukraine. That is why companies and businesses are struggling.

There are two specific things that the Government can and should do to help precisely those businesses: first, decouple the price of electricity from gas so that the true costs of generating electricity are reflected in the price that consumers pay; and secondly, implement a carbon tax in order to be able to use those revenues to assist industries to make the just transition from fossil fuels to the clean, green, cheap energies of the future.

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Lady is right to point out that there is a lot of misinformation in this space, and it is often used by the Conservatives to hide their own failings in government. Of course, the energy price hike that we had was partly because the previous Government had not delivered the security that we needed in our home-grown energy supply and storage. We are looking at all options to make sure that we have the right systems in place going forward. We already have the emissions trading scheme, and we are looking at where that goes in future years. She is right to point out that we need to look at all these things.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

The pretence is that Britain is somehow caught in a storm- tossed sea of international gas prices, which drives up energy costs, but when INEOS reports that it is paying £127 million a year in carbon taxes, rising to £2 billion by 2030, is it not the case that we are seeing the cascade of jobs losses because Labour has made decarbonisation deindustrialisation?

[Sarah Jones]

I think the hon. Gentleman knows that his own party are the experts on deindustrialisation, which we saw significantly across all parts of our manufacturing sector, including at INEOS. I regularly meet INEOS, as do the Secretary of State and other colleagues, and we are looking at what we can do to support the sector. It faces a lot of challenges, and we are looking to try to resolve them.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

My constituents in Edinburgh West, like many others across Scotland and the UK, depend on energy-intensive industries for their livelihoods: defence, whisky and Grangemouth. How can the Minister reassure people who are already suffering because of high domestic energy prices that the situation will not be made worse by losing jobs in those industries?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Lady is right to raise these challenges, which we are trying to grapple with. We are looking at how we can provide support on energy prices and other aspects for energy-intensive industries. Of course, the energy-intensive industries that qualify for the supercharger are getting significantly increased support from April, which will be helpful, but we recognise that that does not go far enough, and we need to do more.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Talking of experts in deindustrialisation, over 1,000 jobs at Luton’s Stellantis plant have been lost, impacting my constituents, because this Government did not respond to concerns about energy policy. If the Minister does not agree with us on net zero, does she agree with the general secretary of the GMB, who says that the Government’s energy policies amount to

“exporting jobs and importing virtue”?

[Sarah Jones]

I have met and talked with those from Stellantis many times, and while the closure of the site at Luton was of course very difficult, I know that the reasons were global and complex; it is simply not the case that it was because of energy policy. Stellantis faced a whole range of issues globally, and it had to respond in the way it did. We regret that, and we offered support, but we could not get to a point where we could persuade it to stay. We are working with the MPs and the local council to ensure that what comes afterwards provides good, decent jobs, but the hon. Member is just wrong to say that that was the only reason.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

The Minister has told the House that the Government would not impose any new costs on the ceramics industry, but we know that they are going to increase carbon taxes, which will kill off energy-intensive industries. Does she not see that this is a totally incoherent policy position?

[Sarah Jones]

There was no coherence under the previous Government, and there will be coherence under this Government. We are developing our plan of support for our foundational industries in the industrial strategy. I know that the Opposition are very keen to see what the industrial strategy will contain. They will have to wait a few weeks for its publication, but all will be revealed in due course.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for her answers. Manufacturing currently represents less than 10% of the UK economy, but in Northern Ireland it represents 16% of the economy and about one in four families in Northern Ireland are dependent on manufacturing. It is clear that, as energy prices rise, so do the concerns for such industries. How can the Government and the Minister offer support to those industries to retain their viability while the Government are finding an energy solution?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Member is right to raise this issue, and the figure for manufacturing in Northern Ireland of 15% or 16% is high. Yesterday, I was with trade unionists from Shorts Brothers—Spirit AeroSystems —to talk about the importance of manufacturing there and the importance of retaining those jobs. They made the point that these good jobs have helped not just with people’s lives, but with the sectarian divides. Bringing people out of poverty and giving them good, well-paid jobs is an incredibly important part of the history of Northern Ireland and of what we need to preserve there. I will continue to work with him to make sure we protect that manufacturing base. We of course had huge support in the Budget, with the £2 billion for the automotive sector and the £1 billion for the aerospace sector to support exactly that manufacturing industry.

British Steel

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the steps the Government have taken since the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 came into force.

The Government took the decision to recall Parliament on 12 April so that we could take swift, significant action on British Steel. As hon. Members will be aware, that was the first time Parliament had sat on a Saturday in over 40 years. Our attendance in this place was testament to the urgency and importance of the issue at hand, which was the need to prevent the immediate closure of the blast furnaces at Scunthorpe. The action we took on 12 April and the measures we have taken since matter greatly for this country, and are of enormous importance to thousands of steelworkers and their families. I am very pleased to inform the House that this afternoon, British Steel has cancelled the redundancy consultations started by Jingye. I know that many British Steel employees will breathe a sigh of relief at that news.

It is regrettable that when this Government took office, we inherited a steel sector in crisis, and an iconic British company facing an existential threat. Since day one, we have worked tirelessly with British Steel and the trade unions to find a resolution, because blast furnace closures at Scunthorpe is an outcome that this Government were simply not willing to allow. I want to stress that this kind of state intervention is not something that we intend to replicate in other situations, or for other industries. We recognised that unprecedented action was warranted in a truly unprecedented situation.

As hon. Members will know, the legislation we introduced, which was passed that weekend, gave us the power to direct British Steel’s board and workforce, ensure they got paid, and order the raw materials to keep the blast furnaces running. It also permits the Government to do those things themselves, if the circumstances demand it. We have wasted no time in enacting those powers and taking the urgent action required to keep the blast furnaces lit at Scunthorpe. We have secured the raw materials needed to keep the blast furnaces operating, and we continue to work at pace to secure a steady pipeline of materials. Officials were on site to help British Steel within hours of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 becoming law, and we are already seeing the real-world impact of our decisive intervention.

I am delighted to say that British Steel has also confirmed today that it can keep operating both of the UK’s last remaining blast furnaces. By contrast, Jingye’s plan was to shut one of them down earlier this month. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to hear that the company’s workforce, their families, suppliers and communities have expressed deep gratitude for the action we have taken, which has preserved steelmaking at Scunthorpe and safeguarded thousands of skilled steel jobs.

Now that the immediate emergency has passed, it is right that hon. Members also ask questions about what is next. We have been clear that in order to secure the long-term future of British Steel, which has not been properly invested in for years, we will need a modernisation programme, ideally with a private sector partner. Furthermore, we will need to look beyond any individual company, and ensure a secure and thriving future for the whole steel sector. That is why we are continuing our work to publish the steel strategy this spring.

All options are on the table as we begin to address the company’s long-term sustainable future. My officials met Jingye on 16 April. It was a respectful conversation, and that dialogue will continue as we find a way forward in the national interest that safeguards steelmaking and protects jobs. With that in mind, I also want to say thank you—thank you to those who sent us messages to say we did the right thing to save British Steel, thank you to everyone who offered practical support and, most importantly, thank you to the workers and managers at British Steel who have heard our call to produce the steel that we need to deliver our plan for change, to keep the Scunthorpe site and everyone working at it safe, and to do so in a way that reduces the scale of financial losses. They have shown remarkable resilience and dedication at a supremely difficult time, and have served the plant, their community and the nation. They have promised us that there are better days ahead for British Steel, and we agree. We are giving them the chance they need to write the next chapter of British Steel’s history.

We have assured this House time and again that steel has a bright future under this Government, and I restate that today. Steel is fundamental to Britain’s industrial strength and to our identity as a global power, and we will never hesitate to protect it. We have committed to update both Houses as policy develops and a longer-term strategy is formulated. I reaffirm that written updates will be forthcoming regularly. So let there be no doubt: this week is not the end. It is not the end of the work, and it is not the end of the negotiations, but thanks to the actions we have taken, it is also not the end of British Steel. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and I join her in thanking the Scunthorpe workers for their efforts over the last few weeks.

We are here once again because the Government had no plan—they failed to prepare, they bungled negotiations, and they took too long to listen to the warnings. What do we have to show for it? We have this botched nationalisation and a potential bill for the taxpayer stretching into the billions. I say billions, but it remains entirely unclear how much this bungled 11th-hour decision will cost, while the assets still belong to China. I hope that Members across the House will agree that this is a complete mockery of transparency and accountability, and I hope that the relevant Select Committees will take it upon themselves to conduct their own inquiries. Instead of a statement from the Treasury today, the Chancellor is running to the International Monetary Fund in Washington to explain how she broke the UK economy. Steel nationalisation, the IMF downgrading growth forecasts, trade union summits in No.10—it is all sounding a bit 1970s.

The simple problem is that we do not know the answers to any of these questions because the Government have failed to publish an impact assessment. Will the Minister confirm to the House when they plan to do so? Has anyone in government asked the Office for National Statistics whether British Steel will now be classified as a publicly owned entity? Has the ministerial team discussed the impact of the takeover with the Chancellor on her already evaporated fiscal headroom? To date, how much has the Department spent, or how much has it committed to underwrite—that is a straightforward question that deserves an answer? Given that her Department had no budget for revenue support of steel, has the Minister been able to secure additional funds from the Treasury, so that other sectors or support for British exporters do not pay the price?

We have seen no further detail of the Government’s proposed steel strategy, or any confirmation of longer-term plans to protect British steelmaking. Labour Members refused to back a coking coalmine to produce some of the raw materials that blast furnaces rely on. Instead, they wait for shipments to arrive from halfway around the world. Most importantly, the Government have not set out how they intend to reduce the enormous burden of sky-high energy costs. Instead, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero seems dead set on delusional policies that drive energy prices in this country even higher. We cannot make steel sustainably when we have the highest energy prices in Europe. Prices for industrial energy in Birmingham in this country are four times higher than those in Birmingham Alabama. We cannot make steel if we do not have coal.

As Nissan’s Alan Johnson said today, the “simple fact” is that the UK is

“too expensive… Once you’ve paid your electricity, gas, NICs we are too expensive—any industrial strategy that does not tackle that is a waste of time.”

Well, we are here once again. There is no steel strategy, no industrial strategy, no export strategy and no energy strategy. Perhaps when she replies the Minister can share a single strategy that this Government actually possess.

[Sarah Jones]

It is getting harder and harder to understand quite what the Opposition’s policy is on steel. It is all over the place. On the one hand, they ask us questions about costs. They say they had negotiated a modernisation plan with British Steel, but they will not tell us how much money they were willing to throw at that plan. Their proposal, apparently, was to build on two sites. If Jingye was asking us for £1.2 billion to build on one site, how much taxpayers’ money were the Government putting on the table to fund two? We need answers to those questions.

On nationalisation, last week the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, who was, as we know, Financial Secretary to the Treasury when Liz Truss crashed the economy, said that he backed full nationalisation of British Steel. On the other hand, this morning the Leader of the Opposition said on Radio 4 that nationalisation should be the “last resort.” It seems a bit muddled. Finally, the hon. Member asked questions about the cost of energy pricing, forgetting of course that industrial energy prices doubled under the Tories. UK Steel, the trade body for the steel industry, is clear and has said that it is

“the UK’s reliance on natural gas power generation”

that leaves us with higher prices than our international allies. It is not too much clean energy, but too little.

The hon. Member asked a reasonable question about the costs. I hope he will understand that matters at the moment are sensitive and commercially confidential, and I hope he will be assured that we will publish accounts in due course. We are securing materials and reviewing things such as health and safety, and other critical roles. Regular meetings are happening between the Departments and British Steel, as he would expect, and of course we will publish those details in due course. He asked about the coalmine. British Steel has told us directly that it could not use that coal because of the sulphur content. We also need coke ovens to turn coal into coke, and the coke ovens at British Steel were closed on his watch several years ago. The reality is that the Tories failed the British Steel sector, and this Labour Government are securing it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

I want to thank the Government for saving British Steel. Our Committee has been clear that it is essential for us to retain the ability to make primary steel in this country, and the steps that were taken a couple of Saturdays ago have helped derisk exactly that. The Government deserve credit for that. However, the Committee has written to the Government to say that a steel strategy needs to come forward as quickly as possible. It must be a clear, long-term vision for the industry, and there must be safeguards against the potential of a floodtide of steel from China. We need to use public procurement much more aggressively to support our local industry, energy costs need to come down, and we need a plan to keep scrap onshore. Will the Minister tell us when she plans to bring forward that steel strategy? Ultimately, what is good for the steel industry is good for Scunthorpe.

[Sarah Jones]

My right hon. Friend is of course right: the steel strategy is all the more important now than when we devised it in opposition and committed £2.5 billion for the steel strategy fund in our manifesto. We are looking at how we use that financial support, and, as he knows, at how we might do primary production. We are investigating future market opportunities and how we can increase demand here in the UK. He speaks of procurement, which of course is incredibly important. I have been talking to the procurement Minister and working on that, along with the Steel Council. We need to consider the availability of suitable sites for future investments.

Scrap is important, as my right hon. Friend says—how can we improve UK capability? Trade and overcapacity is a huge issue, and one that we share with our American colleagues, which is why we do not believe that the tariffs are necessary—we have the same problems and should try to solve them together. Carbon leakage, green steel, research and development, jobs and skills—we will develop a whole package of measures as quickly as we can. We will ensure that the plan, which we will publish in the spring, is one for the whole country and secures steel in the UK.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and I associate myself with her gratitude towards Mr Speaker, hon. Members, parliamentary staff and, most importantly, the workers and managers of British Steel.

It is incredibly welcome news that both blast furnaces in Scunthorpe will continue to operate, allowing those who are employed at the site, the 35,000-plus families in this country who would have been affected by its closure, and Britain’s national security, to breathe a momentary sigh of relief. Will the Minister join me in thanking the British Steel workforce for ensuring that the furnaces have not been allowed to go cold? It is good to see the Government taking action after the Conservatives spent far too long dithering over what to do.

The Minister has committed to delivering a steel strategy by the end of the spring, so the Government have five weeks left to produce it. Can she confirm that it will be published before 31 May, and that Parliament will have the opportunity to debate it? When we were here a few Saturdays ago, I asked the Secretary of State to confirm that the pension fund of employees and former employees is not in deficit, that all company contributions are up to date, and that assets of the scheme have not been transferred to the holding company or any offshore businesses. I am waiting for confirmation on that.

Finally, can the Minister guarantee that no redundancies will be made as a result of the action taken in the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson for his support for our interventions and for his helpful questions. We will publish an impact assessment in due course, including classification considerations. He is right to point out that we did not answer his questions last time, and neither am I answering them this time, but I will ensure that I do. We have said that we will come back every four weeks with a statement, but I will write to him separately to ensure that he has the reassurance that he needs.

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date for the steel strategy, but I assure him that we are working as fast as we can. The issue is difficult because we are talking about spending £2.5 billion of public money. We have to ensure that we do that in the correct way. The roundtables that we have held, the advice from the Steel Council, and the work that we are having done by the Materials Processing Institute and Hatch to consider the economic issues that we need to grapple with, are really important—we must get that right. Of course, when we have a steel strategy, the House must have the opportunity to come and talk about it and be reassured that it is the right thing for the steel industry.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Last week, I met trade union representatives at Llanwern steelworks. I clearly understand and welcome the action taken at Scunthorpe, which stands in complete contrast with the Conservative party, which had no steel strategy in 14 years of government. Will the Minister be mindful of the promises made by Tata to invest in assets at Llanwern? We need that to be delivered. Plants like Llanwern should get their fair share of the green steel fund and procurement. What progress will we soon see on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of Tata investing in those assets and the future of the Port Talbot site, which is incredibly important. Of course, we meet regularly to talk about that. We have the transition board, which the Secretary of State for Wales convenes, along with the Welsh Government. We are working at pace to understand what those future investments could be. She is right to demand that the steel plan is for everywhere rather than just for one part or other of the UK. We want to and will ensure that the nations and regions all benefit from the funding and mechanisms that we put in place to improve procurement, scrap and all those things. Of course, it is not just Tata in Wales; Celsa too is incredibly important and a very impressive company. She can be reassured on that front. I am always happy to have more conversations with colleagues from Wales about how that can work going forward.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

It is clearly extremely welcome that the redundancy notices have been withdrawn—the steel community will breathe a sigh of relief. The Minister quite rightly speaks about what happens next. As well as a national streel strategy, the north Lincolnshire area needs a strategy of its own to maintain the local economy. Will she commit to an early meeting with MPs from the affected area, as well as with Councillor Rob Waltham, who leads North Lincolnshire council and has produced a document highlighting the way forward? That would be extremely helpful.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his continued support for his community. Yes, I am very happy to meet the leader of North Lincolnshire council, as I have done previously; he is an incredibly important part of the jigsaw of what happens in the area. I am always happy to meet MPs—I meet my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) and the hon. Gentleman regularly—and will continue to do so to ensure that we work in the interests of the whole area.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) on his tireless advocacy for the steelworkers and his Scunthorpe constituents—it should be recognised. How has the Government’s decision to take control of British Steel been received by the workforce, customers and suppliers?

[Sarah Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments about the tireless work of our hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe on securing the future of British Steel. The Secretary of State went to the British Steel site in Scunthorpe just after the legislation was passed. I think it is fair to say that there was great relief after our intervention, but workers will also quite rightly be asking us, “What happens next and how will you secure the future of the site?” We are now completely focused on that.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Let me ask a question on behalf of my constituents who have sweated blood to keep the blast furnaces going. Unfortunately, as we know, electric arc technology cannot make virgin steel—only blast furnaces can do that. Are the Government 100% committed to maintaining our permanent ability to make virgin steel?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

As the Secretary of State made clear during the debate of Saturday before last, the capacity for primary steelmaking production is important, and the steel strategy will look at exactly how we deliver that. There are new ways of delivering primary steel—using hydrogen, for example—that other European countries are now using and developing. We will ensure that, whatever the future brings, we have the right level of production in this country.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The Government have my full-hearted support for the action they have taken with regard to Scunthorpe, which is important for not merely Scunthorpe itself and the workers there but the supply chain as well. In that regard, I want to raise an issue of concern that I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will look into. I have had a letter from Ian Walker, who is the chairman of Rotary Engineering, a long-established, highly regarded specialist engineering firm in my constituency. It provided services to British Steel last November, and it is still waiting for payment for those services, despite regular correspondence that has been ignored. If Rotary Engineering is having this difficulty with British Steel, many other small and medium-sized enterprises could as well. Will my hon. Friend look into this as a matter of urgency, find out what British Steel has been doing and try to ensure that these important companies—important for not merely British Steel but our whole engineering industry—are paid and able to survive?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The supply chain of these big steel production companies, whether Tata, British Steel or others, is really important. I do not have an answer for him now, but I will look into the issue he raises about Rotary Engineering and ensure the right thing is being done.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and the good news about the saving of British Steel. She has not referred to the timetable for moving towards nationalisation, which we fully support and encourage the Government to push on with, so that they can accelerate towards the modernisation programme that she referred to. The new-found love of this House for blast furnaces should be encouraged, and we should be refurbishing and investing in them. That is the right thing to do to create a thriving steel industry to support British industry and our defence industry.

[Sarah Jones]

We know that Reform is a recent convert to steel—some of us have been supporting the industry for a long time—but the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about what comes next. Our position remains that the best way forward is to try to find a commercial business to invest alongside Government, but we will do whatever it takes to secure the future of steelmaking and protect those jobs, for national security and for the supply chains. No options are off the table. I hope he will understand that although nationalisation is the most likely option, we would prefer a commercially run business. We are investigating all options. Nothing is off the table. We continue having many conversations, and as soon as we have an answer, we will come to this House.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

We need steel for wind turbines, for the equipment for carbon capture and for the expansion of grid infrastructure. In short, it is an essential part of how we expand our energy security in this country. The Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee that the grid connection date for Scunthorpe was 2034. Can my hon. Friend confirm that, as a crucial element of the modernisation agenda and securing the long-term future of Scunthorpe and steelmaking, which is so important to energy and every other part of our economy, she and her colleagues are looking at how that grid connection can be brought forward?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for his important question. He makes the point that we need steel for green energy—wind turbines, carbon capture and so on—and our energy security. There is an important wider point, which is that since the election, £43.7 billion has been committed by the private sector to invest in clean energy in this country. Those on the Opposition Benches who are questioning net zero are putting at risk thousands of jobs that we will see delivered through clean energy. We have to be very careful what we wish for, because that investment is incredibly important for our country. The green energy sector is growing 10% faster than the rest of the economy. These are important things and important jobs.

My hon. Friend makes a really sensible point about grid connection. We have not just seen this at Scunthorpe; we have seen it with many different companies, where grid connections being 15 or even 20 years away makes investment completely unviable. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero announced last week how we are reforming the grid queue, getting rid of zombie projects and ensuring that we prioritise what is important. We will ensure we are doing everything we can to improve that connection at Scunthorpe.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

I take at face value what the Minister has said today about British Steel having a bright future. However, she did not mention any figures, other than a global figure of £2.5 billion floating around somewhere. Will she tell the House when she expects to publish the accounting officer assessment that is required when public money is committed? We can then test in the Public Accounts Committee whether those rules for spending public money are being adhered to, particularly in terms of feasibility.

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really good point: we are spending public money, and we need to be incredibly careful in the way we do that. Of course, what we spend will be accounted for in the Department for Business and Trade annual accounts, as the insolvency costs were when we were in this position in 2019. We will update the House and bring forward whatever we can on those figures. He is right to raise that. I want to reassure him that the £2.5 billion is not floating around; it is a commitment in the Labour manifesto, and it is budgeted for. How we might spend that money is what we are trying to devise through the plan for steel, which will rightly have a lot of scrutiny from this House, the Public Accounts Committee and others.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly congratulate my hon. Friend on her sterling work and very much welcome her statement. No doubt she will remember that on 11 April, the Leader of the Opposition said that in government she had negotiated a steel modernisation plan. The next day, when the Government brought in emergency legislation to save Scunthorpe, she said she was still negotiating a deal when her boss called the snap general election. There was never any agreement for an electric arc furnace on Teesside, as she claimed, as much as me and my colleagues support the concept. Will the Minister confirm that it was the Conservative party that presided over the end of virgin steelmaking in Redcar and Port Talbot, and that it would have done the same at Scunthorpe were it not for the Labour Government? Will she also confirm that if the private sector will not sufficiently invest, the Government will maintain British Steel through public ownership and use their public procurement strategy to make the company sufficiently profitable?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is completely correct. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition confirmed on the “Today” programme this morning that the Conservative party policy is for an electric arc furnace at Scunthorpe or Scunthorpe and Teesside—it is unclear—which would have cost nearly twice as much as the existing proposals, without any mention of primary steelmaking. I understand that the official Opposition’s position is that they are not in favour of retaining primary steelmaking capacity in the UK.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

In her statement, the Minister celebrated the fact that this is not the end of British Steel, and we all welcome that, but Labour’s policies very well could be the end of domestic oil and gas, whether it is the extended windfall tax, removing investment allowances or no new oil and gas licences. We are walking towards the end of our domestic oil and gas sector, which has proven so beneficial to us across Scotland and the UK, all the while offshoring our emissions and relying on, at best, unreliable and, at worst, hostile states such as China to supply our renewable energy infrastructure. Taking the example of British Steel, is it not time to reverse Labour’s headlong rush towards ending oil and gas in the North sea and to rely on our domestic supply for as long as we can, to help our energy security into the future?

[Sarah Jones]

It would be helpful to understand the Opposition’s official position when it comes to China. China is the world’s second largest economy and our fourth largest trading partner. Hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country rely on our relationship and our trade with China. We on the Government Benches believe in free and open trade, and we will continue on that basis. The hon. Lady suggests that that is not the Conservative party’s official opinion; it would be useful to understand that.

Some 70,000 jobs have been lost in North sea oil and gas since the Conservatives were in power, because it is a declining basin and it is getting harder to drill for oil and gas—we know that. The transition is happening; the issue is how we support that. This Government are putting in place a huge amount of support to try to ensure that those very skilled workers can transition into the green energy sector. I repeat this statistic: £43.7 billion of private sector investment in clean energy has been promised since this Government came to power. Is it really the Conservatives’ opinion that we should throw away all that investment and not protect all those jobs for the future?

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and for her swift action. The people of Scunthorpe will be grateful, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) noted, that stands in contrast to the way in which the people of Redcar and other areas were so cruelly abandoned by the last Government. The steel industry is not the production of steel alone; it also includes the supply chain. The Davy Roll Company, now Union Electric Steel, in my constituency, at the heart of Gateshead, performs a vital role as the last cast steel roll maker in the UK. The Minister has met representatives from the company, so will she update me on the work that she is doing to protect not only the steel industry where steel is made, but the wider supply chain?

[Sarah Jones]

I have met representatives from Union Electric Steel—everyone still calls it Davy Roll. The supply chain is incredibly important, and we are looking at it in our plan for steel. However, the investments made across Government more broadly over the years show that that supply chain, in whichever area of manufacturing it is found, has not been protected. The Ministry of Defence is keen to secure the supply chain in the UK for the investment that we are putting into defence, whether in aerospace, advanced manufacturing or space. We need to build supply chain capacity here in the UK because the world has changed and we have different priorities now, and my hon. Friend is right to raise that.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

There is consensus across this House that producing steel in the UK is completely necessary—that is undeniable. However, to produce steel we need coking coal. The US has given us a supply line for the next couple of weeks to keep our blast furnaces alive, and I know that the Minister is speaking to Australia and Sweden as well, but we need the ability to produce coking coal, so will the Minister please breathe fire into producing coking coal here in the UK?

[Sarah Jones]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the situation at Whitehaven. As I have already said, British Streel told us directly that it could not use that coal because of the sulphur content and working coke ovens are needed to—

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

That is not true.

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman says that is not true, but he needs to provide evidence of that, because that is what British Steel has told us, and it does not have coking ovens because they were closed under the previous Government.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that I am a proud steel MP, so it has pained me to watch my business wither on the vine under the last Government. I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for acting so decisively to save British Steel, but in the steel strategy, can she commit to look at the underlying problems affecting Liberty Steel, a speciality green steel producer, including high energy prices, business rates and other countries, particularly China, dumping their dirty, inefficient steel in our market?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend makes important points and that is exactly what we are looking at in the steel strategy. On dumping steel, having been requested to examine the issue by British Steel, the Trade Remedies Authority has agreed to look at steel safeguards and ensure that they are fit for purpose in the here and now. We are also looking at what happens beyond 2026, when the steel safeguards stop, to ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place. All the issues she mentions need to be looked at, including electricity prices and energy prices, which doubled under the last Conservative Government. As we have said before, 53% of global steel production comes from China. We need to look at that imbalance, at how we can ensure cheap steel does not come into this country and at how carbon leakage is working. We are working hard on all those issues.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

If the Government now believe that primary steelmaking capacity is critical for the security of the UK, do they also recognise that the skilled workers needed to produce that steel are equally as important? If so, why were they willing to let 2,800 of them be made unemployed last September in Port Talbot?

[Sarah Jones]

I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that the interventions that we made in this case were different for a number of reasons. When we were in Opposition, we worked with Tata to try to get it to change its plans, but we were unsuccessful. When we came into Government, we improved the deal that the previous Government had negotiated and we improved the redundancy offer. We got Tata to commit to invest in assets and free up land for other things, and we got it to provide a package of measures to improve that situation. The hon. Gentleman is right that that package meant the closure of the blast furnaces and the building of an electric arc furnace, with the closure happening before the electric arc furnace arrived, and because of the way that electric arc furnaces work, they are more efficient and need fewer people. We have been working really hard through the transformation board, led by the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Government, to ensure that everybody has a significant package of support to try to ensure they transition to other jobs. That work is ongoing and progressing well, and we will continue to focus on it.

The two situations were fundamentally different. In Scunthorpe, British Steel was in the middle of a consultation on potential redundancies, and it failed to secure the materials to keep the blast furnaces going, which would have completely broken what British Steel should have been doing during that consultation. We could not allow that to happen, those blast furnaces to close and thousands of people to be suddenly made redundant, which is why we intervened in the way we did.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her statement and for her action on British Steel. I extend my thanks to the officials in her Department, who I know have worked tirelessly in support of our Ministers to secure a future for the business. The Government’s plan for change has changed the lives of steelworkers in Scunthorpe and Teesside. People I work with, and their families, will feel a sense of relief—I feel a sense of relief. Ultimately, it is the customers of British Steel who will pay the wages of those workers in the future. In one of the future updates that the Minister has promised, can we cover the product and market development for British Steel, and how British Steel can better penetrate the UK market and increase its market share for domestic production?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work and for the support that he has provided to me, officials and others because of his expertise in this space. He is right to thank staff; they have worked unbelievably hard, and I am very grateful for what they have done. He is also right to talk about how we ensure that the product market develops in the way that we want it to. We are looking at how we increase demand in the UK, as well as at procurement and other issues, so that we are not just trying to save our existing provision, but to expand our provision so that the steel industry can start to grow, instead of halving as it has done over the past 10 years under the Tories.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Despite recent comments by a Scotland Office Minister, may I make it crystal clear that it is not “manufacturing grievance” to suggest that Grangemouth, like Scunthorpe, should be nationalised to protect a critical economic and security asset that has been run down by foreign owners? What we have seen from the UK Government in the last weeks, including today, is that when push comes to shove, they can take bold action in crisis, as they have done in Scunthorpe. Therefore, is it not the case that if the UK Government fail to act in a similar fashion at Grangemouth, highly skilled jobs will be lost, Scotland’s only capacity to refine oil will be shut down and critical energy security will be further diminished?

[Sarah Jones]

We deeply regret the choices that INEOS has made. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Grangemouth does not provide the only refining capacity in the UK, but he is right to say it is the only provision in Scotland, which is why we intervened with a package of support and a £200 million commitment from the national wealth fund for what happens to the site. The hon. Gentleman is right to stand up for people in Grangemouth over the issues that they are facing, and we are doing all we can. As I said in my statement, the position in Scunthorpe was unique and particular, but that does not mean that we do not care just as much about the people in Grangemouth and that we will not ensure that we do everything that we can to pursue to the future development of that site in a way that supports jobs.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I add my thanks to the Minister and her colleagues for their sterling work in recent weeks. It is true to say that Labour is saving steel. Some 68% of the steel this country needs is imported. That is a disgraceful legacy from the last Conservative Government, but it presents an opportunity for this Labour Government. Does the Minister agree that the next step we need to take is to mount robust trade protections, including bringing the carbon border adjustment mechanism forward to 2026 and making it mandatory for public procurement to use British steel, so that as we rebuild this country, we do it with British steel made by British workers?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to say that we produce only about 30% of the steel we use in this country, and we must be much more ambitious about increasing that figure. He is also right to raise questions about carbon leakage and safeguards. The CBAM is being introduced in 2027. We are working through what happens in the interim period, how it works and how it interacts with the European CBAM—some changes are being made to what will be implemented. This work is obviously being led by the Treasury, but we are working really closely with the Treasury to ensure that the CBAM works in a way that protects the steel industry.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

On the day that Parliament was recalled, I gather that the workers themselves had to confront Chinese executives who were intent on coming on to the site. They believe that those executives intended to take unilateral action to shut down the blast furnace irrecoverably. Is that correct? What does that tell us about the motivation and behaviour of China when it gets its hands on our strategic industries?

[Sarah Jones]

I need to be clear on this point, because I know that there has been lots of speculation. We are not aware of any deliberate acts of sabotage. There was an issue with people coming on site who did not gain access. No Jingye officials are on site at the moment. We are talking to Jingye in a respectful way about what happens next. That said, it was the case that we had been negotiating in good faith, and we felt that that good faith had ended in the way in which Jingye was not securing the raw materials that we were really clear it needed to secure, so there was a breakdown there. The position on Jingye is a position about it as a company; it is not a position about our wider view of China. Because we have hundreds of thousands of jobs that are dependent on trade with China and because it is our fourth-largest trading partner, our position remains that we need to be mindful of that, but we also need to be mindful of security, and we always will be. There will always be a very specific and deliberate account of the security implications of any investors in the UK.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

We cannot make British steel without British ceramics. High temperature-resistant refractory ceramics are needed to line the blast furnaces to keep them alight, but the Minister is acutely aware that the ceramics sector in this country, much like the glass and chemicals sectors, is being crippled by energy prices, because of both wholesale costs and policy costs, which the last Government chose to put on and which were continued by this Government. When the Minister talks about backing British industry and manufacturing, can she say when glass, ceramics and other foundational industries will get the support they need to prop up and support the advanced manufacturing that we are all so proud of? The cost of that will be a tiny proportion of what has been committed to British Steel.

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is quite right to raise ceramics and their importance in blast furnaces. We have all become steel experts through the many podcasts that everybody has been listening to over recent weeks. One of the issues with shutting down blast furnaces immediately without proper provision is not just that the metal hardens, but that the ceramics crack and fracture. That was the risk with Jingye refusing to bring in those raw materials. My hon. Friend knows that the ceramics industry is very important to the Secretary of State and to myself, and the wider foundational industries are very important too. He is right to raise issues that we have talked about many times in terms of energy prices. The Government are working at pace to try to alleviate that problem and many others that he has raised, whether cheap imports or other issues.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Government have done the right thing, because steel is strategically important and the jobs are locally important. The Minister has asked what is next. I suspect that the House will come back to this issue, maybe very shortly, because over the last decade, we have seen energy-intensive industries flee the United Kingdom. Aluminium is gone, we have hardly any oil refineries, and we have one steel plant left. The reason for that is the mad net zero policy, which the Minister has tried to defend today. Decarbonisation has increased our energy costs, so that they are three times higher than in the US and eight times higher than in China. We do not have any local supplies of raw materials; we bring them halfway round the world. Carbon taxes add to the cost for businesses. Does the Minister accept that the economic reality is that we pour public money in at one end, and see it going down the net zero drain at the other?

[Sarah Jones]

I just do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s position on this issue. He is right to say that we have seen the offshoring of manufacturing over a period of years. We have not entirely lost the aluminium sector—there is one smelter left, but that is all. Indeed, I meet representatives of the aluminium sector regularly, because it has had 25% tariffs put on it, just as the steel industry has. The trade body, UK Steel, was really clear that the UK’s reliance on natural gas power generation leaves us with higher prices. The steel sector does not pay the green levies because of reductions that it is given. It is not net zero causing this problem; the challenge is how we get the clean energy that we need to stop our reliance on the overseas oil and gas market. He is right to say that we have seen offshoring, and we are working to stop that.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister, in contrast with the last speaker, agree that the future of this country is in clean power, safely produced from our own natural resources, such as floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, and ultimately in our infrastructure being built out of green British steel, not steel imported from China?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We were talking earlier today about the importance of floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, and the huge possibilities that brings the UK for energy security and good jobs.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Further to the answer that the Minister gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), will she at least concede that it would be opportune to conduct an audit of our critical national industries, to ensure that if there are issues around foreign ownership, or ownership by malign state entities, we know where they are and have a plan to deal with them?

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. We need an audit of our critical national industries, and we are doing that through our industrial strategy, so that, particularly in the eight growth-driving sectors that we have identified, we have policies to ensure that companies in the UK can continue to thrive. We believe in free and open trade, and we are not moving away from that; the Chancellor is making that case this week with our American colleagues. Security is incredibly important. The right hon. Gentleman will know that we are ensuring that where security is an issue, we take appropriate action, but that does not mean that we will stop trading with the second largest economy in the world.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

I put on record how proud I am to be sat on the Benches of the Government who are finally taking action to save the steel industry in this country. In my constituency, tens of thousands of people have steel engineering and manufacturing running through their blood. We are proud of that history, and we really want to contribute to a green, clean industrial future. When Ministers have big discussions about investment, and meet great businesses that want a place in which to invest, I ask them to consider Darlington and the Tees valley—a fruitful land full of people who know the value of hard graft.

[Sarah Jones]

Darlington and the Tees valley are excellent places in which to invest, so I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. In many parts of our country, steel is in the bones of our communities, but of course, this is not about looking back—it is about looking forward. In the future, we will need steel for not just clean energy, but for building the 1.5 million homes that we want to build, for Heathrow expansion and for our railways. We will need it across a whole range of sectors, and we know that demand is increasing, not reducing.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

The Minister talks about working at pace. If she wants to see what pace looks like, she might consider the Business and Trade Committee’s report on steel, which was turned around in rapid time—much faster than the snail’s pace review of steel, which has yet to emerge. Will it do so in the spring, or the summer? No one is quite sure. When that review finally emerges, will it address the elephant in the room, which is the ridiculous energy costs in this country? They have been driven up in part by gas, but also by carbon taxes, and by the renewable subsidies laid on by this Government.

[Sarah Jones]

The ridiculous energy costs that the hon. Gentleman refers to are a result of 14 years of Conservative Government—we need to be really clear about that. His point about the steel strategy, which has already been made, is reasonable. Of course, Members are really keen for us to bring that strategy forward as soon as possible, but I repeat what I have said: we are looking at spending up to £2.5 billion, and there is absolutely no way that I, the Secretary of State, the Chancellor or the Prime Minister could come to this House and say, “Here is a steel strategy that we have written on the back of a fag packet after a couple of weeks thinking about it.” We need to do this right, and that is what we are doing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Ann Davies.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. I would like to follow up on a question from the hon. Member for Brycheiniog, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), because unlike at Scunthorpe, jobs at Port Talbot are not being saved. The Government say that instead, they will retrain workers through the employment and skills flexible fund. Seven months later, can the Secretary of State say exactly how that money has been spent, and how many of the 2,800 laid-off steelworkers at Port Talbot have been retrained or re-employed?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for promoting me to Secretary of State—I am actually just a junior Minister. She is right to raise the issue of Port Talbot. The transition board has papers that we can send her, which set out exactly how many people have gone through training processes. The number of people who have taken compulsory redundancy is very small; I might be wrong—I am speculating slightly—but I think it is in the region of 190. Those people have had a package of support, and a lot of detail is available through the transition board about how that support will be provided. Of course, about 5,000 jobs will be secure in Port Talbot, but the hon. Lady is right to raise the issue; it is a significant and important one that I would not want to downplay. The situation in Port Talbot was different, and we had to have a different response, but I am very happy to provide the information that she wants in more detail.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Jim Shannon to ask the final question from the Back Benches.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for all her hard work, and I thank the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Labour Government for their commitment to, and for saving, British Steel. There is no one in this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who is not aware of that and does not welcome it, so well done.

I welcome the Minister’s statement, but can she confirm that developers and those in the construction sector in Northern Ireland, where steel is really important, will be able to secure steel as a certainty, and at a reasonable price? Can she confirm that they will not be tempted to outsource for fear that orders will not be fulfilled, because British steel will be accessible, viable, ready and available to those in Northern Ireland who wish to use it?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of appreciation. The construction sector is incredibly important when it comes to steel. We are looking at every measure we can take to ensure that people can buy British steel in a way that is competitive and useful for them. We are looking at procurement and at other measures to make the sector more competitive, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that British Steel provides huge amounts of steel for the construction sector, and we want that to continue.