PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill - 9 June 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Under the Order of the House of 21 May, we shall now move to the Committee of the whole House. I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.

Clause 52

Compensation scheme regulations

I beg to move amendment 7, page 34, line 15, at end insert—

“(5A) Compensation scheme regulations must include provision which specifies that payment of compensation may be made until any written estimate under section 54 (4A) is laid before Parliament.”

This amendment works with Amendments 8 and 9 so as to require regulations to specify that payment of compensation cannot be made until the Secretary of State has published a written estimate of the environmental liabilities of the steel undertaking, provided to them by the independent valuer.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 52 and 53 stand part.

Amendment 8, clause 54, page 35, line 25, leave out “may—

(a) require or permit”

and insert—

“must—

(a) require”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 9, page 35, line 34, at end insert—

“(4A) The regulations must—

(a) provide that the independent valuer prepares and submits to the Secretary of State a written estimate of the environmental liabilities of that undertaking, including but not limited to—

(i) contamination of land, water or air attributable to the undertaking’s operations;

(ii) compliance with environmental obligations imposed by or under any enactment; and

(iii) remediation or restoration costs that are contingent or prospective;

(b) provide that the Secretary of State must publish and lay any written estimate provided under this subsection before Parliament.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 6, page 35, line 40, at end insert—

“(c) the anticipated effects of—

(i) external tariffs on UK industry; and

(ii) the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, as set out by Part 5 of the Finance Act 2026 on the value of a steel undertaking.”

This amendment would require consideration of external tariffs and the implementation of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, when conducting a valuation of the Steel undertaking.

Clauses 54 to 57 stand part.

Amendment 20, clause 58, page 39, line 7, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State may only provide financial assistance under this section if they are satisfied that financial assistance will secure value for money.”

This amendment would only allow the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance if the NAO had concluded that it would secure value for money for taxpayers.

Amendment 22, page 39, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State may not in any five-year period provide financial assistance under this section of an amount that exceeds £1 million per employee of the steel undertaking.

(1B) The number of employees of a steel undertaking for the purpose of subsection (1A) is the number of persons employed on the date the financial assistance was first provided.

(1C) ‘employee’ has the meaning given by section 230 (Employees, workers etc.) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.”

This amendment would cap the amount of financial assistance that could be provided to a steel undertaking to £1 million per worker over 5 years.

Amendment 24, page 39, line 24, at end insert—

“(4A) Financial assistance under this section may not include funding provided by the National Wealth Fund.”

This amendment prevents money from the National Wealth Fund being used to provide financial assistance under this Act.

Clause 58 stand part.

Amendment 4, clause 59, page 39, line 29, insert at end “and,

(b) compensation paid under any compensation scheme regulations made under section 52.”

This amendment requires the Government to report on the compensation paid under any compensation scheme regulations made under section 52.

Amendment 10, page 39, line 31, leave out “12” and insert “3”

This amendment together with Amendment 14 would increase the frequency with which the Secretary of State must make reports about financial assistance to every three months.

Amendment 11, page 39, line 33, leave out “12” and insert “3”

See explanatory note for Amendment 13.

Clauses 59 and 60 stand part.

New clause 6—Parliamentary scrutiny of Financial Assistance—

“(1) Before providing any assistance under section 58, the Secretary of State must lay a proposal for providing the financial assistance (‘the proposal’) before Parliament.

(2) No financial assistance may be provided under section 58 unless the proposal has been laid before Parliament.

(3) If, within the period of 90 days after the proposal has been laid, a select committee of the House of Commons makes any recommendations with regard to the proposal, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to the recommendations before providing any financial assistance.

(4) The proposal must include—

(a) details of the nature and amount of the financial assistance,

(b) the intended beneficiary or beneficiaries of the financial assistance,

(c) the expected purpose and effect of the financial assistance,

(d) any conditions, repayment arrangements, guarantees, indemnities or other liabilities attaching to the financial assistance, and

(e) any other information the Secretary of State believes it is necessary for the Committee to have in order to complete its consideration of the proposal, subject to the restrictions in subsection (3).

(5) The proposal may not include information which, if it were made public, may damage—

(a) national security;

(b) fiduciary duties; or

(c) commercially sensitive interests.”

This new clause prevents financial assistance being provided until 90 days after information about the package of financial assistance being made available to a Select Committee of the House of Commons for its consideration.

New clause 12—Financial assistance: limit—

“Financial assistance of a total value of no more than £2.5 billion may be provided under section 58 of this Act before 15 August 2029.”

This new clause would limit the financial assistance that can be provided under the Act.

New clause 13—Financial assistance: England and Wales—

“Where financial assistance is provided to steel undertakings in England under section 58 of this Act, an equivalent to the total amount of financial assistance provided to steel undertakings in England must be made available to steel undertakings in Wales.”

This new clause requires equivalent funding to be provided to steel undertakings in Wales compared to those in England.

Clauses 61 to 64 stand part.

New clause 7—Impact assessments—

“Before exercising any power under this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment on the proposed exercise of that power.”

This new clause would require an impact assessment to be published before the Secretary of State exercised any of the powers under the Act.

New clause 4—Limit on expenditure on financial assistance and compensation—

“(1) The total amount of compensation paid by the Secretary of State under Part 2 and financial assistance paid under section 58 is limited to—

(a) £500m, or

(b) an amount so authorised by resolution of the House of Commons, whichever is higher.”

This new clause prevents the Secretary of State from paying more than £500m in financial assistance and compensation under the Act, unless the House of Commons passes a resolution authorising them to do so.

New clause 9—Duty to try to find a private sector purchaser for any nationalised steel undertaking—

“Where a steel undertaking has been subject to the principal transfer power under this Act, the Secretary of State must—

(a) make all practicable efforts to find a private sector purchaser for the steel undertaking; and

(b) lay a report before Parliament every six months which sets out progress made towards finding a private sector purchaser for the steel undertaking.”

This new clause would put a duty on the Secretary of State to seek a private sector buyer for any steel company that has been nationalised, and report to Parliament on progress made every six months.

New clause 10—Report on the impact any nationalisation of steel undertakings has had on inward investment to the United Kingdom—

“Within six months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent six months, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament which sets out the impact that nationalisation of any steel undertaking under this Act has had on inward investment to the United Kingdom.”

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact any nationalisation of steel undertakings has had on inward investment to the United Kingdom.

New clause 11—State aids—

“The Secretary of State must not exercise the powers in this Act so as to grant any advantage through state resources on a selective basis to any organisations that could potentially distort competition and trade, including any advantage that might be granted to steel undertakings subject to a transfer power over comparable privately-owned steel undertakings in the United Kingdom.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to maintain a level playing-field between nationally owned and privately owned steel businesses.

We heard throughout yesterday’s debate from Members across the Committee about the importance of steelmaking as a vital strategic sector in the UK, and no doubt we will hear about it again today. We rely on the sector for essential parts of our national infrastructure, for transport and for advanced manufacturing. Steelmaking and the industry more broadly create thousands of good jobs across the country, helping to power our economy and boost our local communities, and in increasingly uncertain times, it is essential to support our defence industry.

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches therefore broadly welcome this legislation as a temporary, emergency and targeted step aimed specifically at turning around British Steel before it can be returned to the private sector, and we note that it is in that spirit that British steel producers also support these measures. We need to see more ambition and clarity in the delivery of the steel strategy—for example, when it comes to boosting domestic production to meet 50% of domestic steel demand, further incentivising the use of British-made steel in the private sector and managing the transition to electric arc furnaces.

I wish to speak in favour of amendments 7, 8 and 9. These would strengthen the treatment of environmental liabilities in relation to the steel undertaking and ensure that they were explicitly identified and accounted for before compensation payments were made. They highlight the principle that the true financial position of an undertaking cannot be properly understood without a clear and transparent assessment of its environmental liabilities. By accepting the amendments, the legislation could work as a package to ensure that environmental liabilities were not only considered but formally assessed, published and laid before Parliament.

In particular, the amendments would require an independent valuer to prepare a written estimate of the environmental liabilities associated with the undertaking, including contamination of land, water or air; compliance with environmental obligations; and current and future remediation or restoration costs. That would ensure that the full environmental cost of the undertaking’s operation was properly captured, including liabilities that might not yet have crystallised but were none the less foreseeable. Crucially, the amendments would link the process to the timing of compensation payments, specifying that compensation could not be paid until the environmental liabilities estimate had been produced and presented, and ensuring that taxpayers were not left to pick up the bill for any environmental damage caused by the company’s previous owners.

Furthermore, I wish to speak in favour of amendment 6. This amendment would require that when carrying out a valuation of the steel undertaking, consideration was explicitly given to the impact of external tariffs and the carbon border adjustment mechanism. It reflects the reality that the value of a steel business is not determined solely by its internal operations and that it is also significantly influenced by international trade conditions and environmental policy frameworks.

The previous Conservative Government oversaw a string of near collapses and interim last-minute packages. They scrapped the industrial strategy, which is so vital to our manufacturers, and they erected new trade barriers, making it harder for our steel producers to do business with their biggest export market across the channel. This legislation should be much more ambitious on an improved agreement with the EU for steel exports. Given the international nature of the steel market and the growing importance of carbon-related border adjustments, it is reasonable that these factors should be explicitly included in valuation methodologies. Amendment 6 would help to ensure that any valuation was not artificially insulated from key external drivers of cost and competitiveness. It would also provide a more accurate basis for decision making.

I am interested in what the hon. Member has had to say on amendment 6. She spoke specifically with regard to steel making. Has she also had representations about the impact of these tariffs on UK manufacturers who make things out of steel, as well as on steel stockholders? Is it her intention through the amendment to get further information on that, or is that not its purpose?

That is not the specific purpose of the amendment, but I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point. I know that the Minister has heard about this issue on a number of occasions, throughout the debates on this Bill and during the urgent question last week in the Chamber. I would like to take this opportunity to reinforce the point that has been made on multiple occasions across this House about the tariff regime and the changes that are coming in. I have spoken to a number of manufacturers about the very real concerns right across the sector about the changes in tariffs. I know that the Minister is focused on that, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving us another opportunity to raise concerns with the Minister, which I know he has heard.

Amendment 5 would extend the Government’s reporting obligations to include progress on negotiations with the European Union—

Order. I remind the hon. Lady that amendment 5 has not been selected and so would be out of scope for this debate.

Thank you for your guidance, Madam Chair. I will reframe my remarks slightly, because they relate to the intervention that I took.

Steel producers in the UK are heavily integrated into international supply chains, and continued access to frictionless or improved export arrangements is vital for sustaining jobs and production. From 1 July, the Government will limit tariff-free steel imports. Although in many ways that will support business, there is a lack of certainty about costs and the impact on downstream manufacturers is still opaque.

Perhaps I can give the hon. Lady a moment to gauge where she is in her notes while I take her back momentarily to amendment 7. She spoke about the importance of steel to our defence industry, which is therefore central to European security and to deterring the threat of Russian rearmament, but amendment 7 would produce significant procedural barriers and slow down our ability to use the Bill. Does she agree that such amendments risk causing serious impediments to supply-chain security, particularly for our defence industry?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for underlining the real importance of the steel industry to our defence industry and the heightened importance of sustaining our defence industry, and all the companies and the jobs associated with it, in this time of heightened global instability. Liberal Democrat Members certainly believe that support for our defence industry is paramount at this time, but it is important that Parliament gets the opportunity to scrutinise all the costs associated with the proposed undertaking should the Government choose to exercise the powers in the Bill. That is the purpose of amendment 7.

Clause 52 will give the Secretary of State broad powers to establish compensation arrangements linked to the exercise of transfer powers, including transfers of shares, property rights and liabilities. Amendment 4 would require the Government to report not only on the existence of compensation schemes under the clause, but on the compensation actually paid under those schemes.

My new clause 6 would strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of any future financial assistance. It would require, before any assistance is provided, the Secretary of State to lay a detailed proposal before Parliament, setting out the nature and amount of assistance and the intended beneficiaries, the purpose and expected effect, and any associated conditions, including repayment terms, guarantees, indemnities or other liabilities.

In a similar vein, new clause 4, in my name, would introduce parliamentary oversight, and compel the Government to bring forward a resolution for any expenditure by the Secretary of State under part 2 that exceeds £500 million, which is roughly equivalent to the annual cost of keeping the Scunthorpe plant running, based on the publicly available figures. The clause reflects the principle that, where significant public funds are being committed, there should be clear parliamentary control and oversight of the overall financial exposure. By setting a defined limit, it would ensure that expenditure does not escalate beyond what has been explicitly agreed by Parliament without further democratic approval. The measure is designed to ensure a balance between enabling necessary intervention and maintaining proper oversight of the total level of public expenditure involved. I urge hon. Members to vote in favour of the new clause.

Steel is a valuable sector with far-reaching benefits across the UK for critical infrastructure projects, defence and the future of renewable energy. The steel industry is vital to so many of the UK’s national strategic priorities. The Liberal Democrats support the Government’s pace and urgency in taking action to assist the steel industry, but there is a significant need for greater transparency and accountability relating to how these measures will be exercised. There is potential in the Bill to improve training opportunities for steel exports, and I urge Ministers to consider our proposals on that matter.

I call Toby Perkins.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair—that was a pleasant surprise.

I do not intend to detain the Committee for long, but I will take this opportunity to welcome the Government’s steps in the Bill, which build on the steps that we took with the emergency legislation that ensured a future for Scunthorpe. We all recognise that steelmaking is part of our national security. Without steel capability, we are simply unable to be truly independent in military terms or in many other terms. The commitment of the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to ensuring a future for British Steel is not only sensible and ambitious, but a welcome change from the policies that were pursued by previous Prime Ministers over too many years to mention.

At a time when there has been such huge pressure on the public finances, it is tremendously welcome that the Government are stepping forward with £2.5 billion to boost the steel industry, along with the important measures relating to those with expertise in the industry, which is a complicated sector. It is therefore very welcome that the Government’s efforts in these areas are being led by those with such expertise in the sector.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the opportunities from an electric arc furnace, but does he recognise the vital importance of keeping blast furnace primary steelmaking capability, which can only take place in Scunthorpe?

Yes, I do. I should say to the hon. Gentleman that I had the opportunity last night to predict that he would be the leader of Reform by the time we went into the general election, and I stand by that. We would normally expect to see a party leader in the House of Commons. We never see the Reform leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), in the House of Commons, which is why I predicted that it would be the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice)—but I am getting distracted and will return to his question.

I am absolutely committed to doing everything we can to decarbonise, but in certain sectors doing so would be to deindustrialise. There is no sense in allowing blast furnaces only for imported products and not looking after that ourselves. I welcome the Government’s drive and direction, but I absolutely want to see that future for Scunthorpe. We should look at ways that we can use greener gases rather than pursue anything against that.

Nuclear is going to play a role in cheaper energy for households, and I welcome the Government’s announcement there will be an array of small modular reactors that will have to be made out of British steel. Equally, I regret the fact that offshore wind turbines are being built not in this country; they should be built here, out of British steel.

When I worked in the oil fabrication industry, we had thousands of trained welders. Today, we do not have so many people who could actually work with British steel. Does the hon. Member agree that, in parallel with doing the good work in the Bill, we should be thinking about keeping these skills, which are crucial to the future? If we do not have them, we will not use British steel.

I agree 100% about the importance of protecting skills, which has been a huge priority of mine throughout my time in this House. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that skills have been lost from the sector, as we tragically and foolishly allowed the steel industry to be stripped away, as he rightly pointed out, by the Conservative party. That has been tremendously damaging to our national security, our economy, our industry and, as he rightly says, the skills base in this country.

I am very supportive of what the Government are doing in this Bill. I would like to take the opportunity to speak, as I did a moment ago, to a question raised with me that is somewhat parallel to the narrow terms of the Bill, but is relevant to amendment 6 and to amendment 5, which has not been selected. We are—absolutely sensibly—taking measures on the tariffs to prevent the dominance of the Chinese steel industry, which sells steel at ludicrously cheap prices and is attempting to get all other countries to lose their steel industries so that we will then all be dependent on China. However, we have to be careful that we do not cause unintended consequences for British manufacturers that use steel and for our international competitiveness. We do not want to end up in the position of, for example, rolled bar, where we do not have reliable and strong provision of that here in the UK. We need to tread carefully with this. I know the Minister is on this, but I take this opportunity to come back to that point.

I have already written to the Secretary of State about a manufacturer in my constituency that makes transport ramps out of steel, and three other companies in the constituency are more directly involved in steel stockholding and have products manufactured out of steel, and they are all deeply concerned about where we currently are on this.

I know we have the current plan for 1 July—that is not far away at all. If we do not get this right, the consequences could be extraordinarily serious. I know that is on the Minister’s list and that it is prominent in his mind, but I add my call to all those others who say that we need to tread extremely carefully. With that, it remains only to say well done to the Minister and the Government for their continued backing of steel, and I look forward to seeing this—

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I was just about to finish, but if my hon. Friend thinks that it cannot wait, I will happily bring him in.

My hon. Friend has been speaking about the steel strategy in the round. I wish to echo his remarks about the lower part of our defence sector, but there are also our small and medium-sized enterprises that make things that are not necessarily identifiable as tangible defence things. We need to ensure that we understand the types of steel that they require and the consequences of the tariffs on them. It is also important that we understand the steelmaking strategy as a whole, so from ore all the way through to direct reduced iron. We need to ensure that in gaining our sovereignty, we can create more reliable partners and separate some of the places that produce ore from the production that has traditionally been done in China. Does he agree that is something we must ensure is encompassed in this? That is why I am concerned about some of the amendments that have been tabled.

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who clearly speaks with great knowledge on these subjects. He makes an important point, once again raising the importance of this whole area of legislation to the defence industry and to sovereign capability. The reality is that our defence industry is crucial economically, for jobs and for our national protection, but also for exports. We should absolutely welcome those British manufacturers making things here and selling them across the world. If we inadvertently cause them to be less competitive, we will rue the day, so we need to tread carefully. But his point about ore and those amendments is well made.

I will sit down now, but I tell the Government that they have my absolute support on this approach to the nationalisation of British Steel, and I ask the Minister to respond to the points I have made.

I call the shadow Minister.

Yesterday we discussed amendments in which we sought to rein in some of the unfettered powers that the Secretary of State is taking for himself in this legislation. Today’s amendments are about trying to rein in the unfettered liability and financial risk that this legislation puts on the taxpayer.

For example, amendment 20 would allow the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance if the National Audit Office has concluded that it would secure value for money for taxpayers. The amendment is obviously about making it clear that these powers are not a blank cheque, that they must be constrained, justified and used only when strictly necessary. We cannot have industrial improvisation when the British taxpayer is being asked to pick up the bill. It is not fair that hard-working taxpayers should be forced to pay for a potential failure of Ministers who think they are able to defy the realities of this market.

Amendment 22 would cap the amount of financial assistance that could be provided to a steel undertaking to £1 million per worker over a five-year period. It would also fix the employee count at the point that support begins, with “employee” being defined by section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The amendment would ensure that financial assistance is targeted, proportionate and provides value for money. If the Government believe in this intervention, as they clearly do, they should be willing to set limits on it, because without such a cap we are simply asking taxpayers to sign up to an unlimited liability.

Would the shadow Minister consider that putting a limit on this, when the financial support would only be provided in an emergency, when absolutely necessary, might be unwise and might lead us to having to recall Parliament yet again to take the necessary action?

I take issue with where the hon. Member is coming from on that, because by putting a sensible and finite limit on the amount per employee—and I will speak later to another amendment where we propose an overall limit—we are talking about the amount that has been set by the Chancellor through the spending review envelope. I do not think she really wants to say to the Committee that there should be completely unlimited budgets for this intervention. She herself would know that in any intervention we ought to go in with a wise idea about what is a reasonable spending limit.

Amendments 10 and 11 would increase the frequency with which Parliament is told about the amount that has been spent. Currently, as it is framed in the legislation, the Secretary of State must make a report to Parliament only every 12 months. We are suggesting in these amendments that reports about financial assistance should come every three months. We are talking about substantial and significant sums of public money, so we do not think that annual reporting would be sufficient. Quarterly reporting would ensure that Parliament can properly scrutinise how much money is being spent and how much is being done in closer to real time. It is essential that financial exposure is monitored closely and transparently. We do not want costs to escalate without people being able to notice them, and we want Ministers to remain accountable for public spending.

My hon. Friend and I have both been Ministers; we know that a written ministerial statement is not a complicated thing to do every three or four months or whatever it is. I struggle to see what reason there could be not to give Parliament that transparency, for the simple sake of a piece of paper tabled once every three months, to ensure that taxpayers’ interests are protected.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know the Minister to be an extremely reasonable man, so I am sure he will agree with our amendment.

New clause 12 would place a firm cap on the total financial assistance that can be provided under the Bill, limiting it to £2.5 billion. As I am sure the hon. Member for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke (Pamela Nash) and other Members know, that is the limit that has been set for the steel strategy, so to reach that limit would mean that this intervention used up the entire amount allocated to the overall steel strategy. The new clause would set the limit up to a specific date in 2029.

As our explanatory statement makes clear, the purpose is simple: to limit the total financial exposure under the Bill. At the moment, the way the Bill is phrased means that it is a completely open-ended financial commitment. We think that a cap of this nature, which would ensure that Ministers had to prioritise their spending decisions rather than continue to inject funds without clear limits or outcomes, is a very sensible thing to do, and I urge everyone to support it.

The hon. Lady is making a very important and interesting point. In the steel industry over recent years, we have seen foreign companies buying British firms, then closing them down and leaving us without this capability. Would anything in new clause 9 prevent that from happening again? Having forced the Government to seek this buyer, is there anything in it to stop that buyer coming in and just closing the business down, meaning we lose that sovereign capability?

We are looking at a Bill that the Government’s own impact assessment says might have a bit of a “chilling effect” on inward investment into the sector. We should all want to have inward investment into our economy. If someone who we regard as an excellent owner of this business should come in and make an offer that is attractive to the Government, I absolutely think the Government should be prepared to take that seriously. We do not want this to be a permanent state of affairs; we want it to be a journey to a thriving steel sector, which may well involve investors coming in from overseas.

I think the hon. Lady is in the same place as the Government, in that they want to see an excellent private sector partner at the earliest opportunity. The point I was trying to make is that she would be compelling the Government, in new clause 9, to seek this provider, and we have seen what has sometimes happened previously. Is she saying that, ultimately, we must do whatever the market decides, or is she basically supporting the Government’s position that this sovereign capability must remain in the UK and that we will work with other partners, but they will not be able to shut down British steelmaking as they have done in the past? Will there be any provisos in the new clause?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be conflating two issues. Last year, when the emergency legislation was introduced and Parliament was recalled on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands war, we did not stand in its way, but what we are asking for in the new clause is for Parliament to be kept informed. Let us agree that we all want to be kept informed about how the discussions are going and to find out what the Government are thinking about their exit plan. I made the point yesterday about the public interest test that it is very unclear whether, once the Secretary of State determines that it is in the public interest for this particular site to be owned by the taxpayer, there will ever be the potential for it to change to different state.

The shadow Minister seems to be implying that, essentially, the business should be up for sale at any moment, almost at any price. It is incredibly destabilising for any business and its employees to suffer that uncertainty. What is required is a period of stability and investment, with a strong vision. She previously made comments about relying on auditors at the National Audit Office to make a strategic judgment about what is in the sovereign national interest. With the greatest of respect to auditors, it is experienced businesspeople—including the Minister—who understand the industry and who can make a much stronger judgment about what is required to retain primary steelmaking in this country, with that sovereign capability, than a bunch of auditors.

I actually think the hon. Gentleman is also agreeing with me on this point. I yield to no one in my admiration for the Minister and his expertise in this industry, but I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he too thinks that it will take business nous and investment into this business to bring it back to a state where it is making money. I also heard him say that he would therefore not object to hearing a report to Parliament every six months about the progress being made, so I look forward to him supporting this amendment in the Lobby later. We want our Ministers to actively work towards returning the business to private ownership, so we want to hear in Parliament about that ongoing progress and to be able to hold Ministers accountable and ask them questions on exactly that from time to time.

New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament every six months on the impact that nationalising steel undertakings has had on inward investment into the UK. I mentioned earlier that the Government’s own impact assessment worries about the potential for a “chilling effect” where Government are taking assets into public ownership in the way that this Bill allows. During its history, the UK has very much relied on being seen as a stable and predictable environment for inward investment. Expropriating and nationalising private businesses sets a precedent that could deter future investors, not just in the steel sector but across the wider economy. The new clause would ensure that Parliament received a regular, transparent analysis of how these interventions were affecting investor confidence and capital flows into the UK economy. We all hope that they would not be adversely affected, but we would want Parliament to know, and this new clause would ensure that any damage to our reputation was identified, understood and addressed early.

New clause 11 would prevent the Secretary of State from using the powers in the Bill to grant any selective advantages through state resources that could distort competition. It would ensure that nationalised steel undertakings were not unfairly advantaged over privately owned ones. Without this safeguard, there is a real risk that nationalised entities could receive preferential treatment, whether through subsidies, contracts or regulatory advantage, undermining fair competition within the domestic steel sector. If private firms believe they will be placed at a disadvantage compared with state-owned competitors, that risks deterring further investment in UK steel and related supply chains.

To conclude, these amendments are about bringing discipline, transparency and balance to a Bill that, as drafted, risks being too broad, too costly and too unconstrained. They would ensure that any intervention was properly assessed, carefully limited and consistently scrutinised, while protecting taxpayers, competition and investor confidence. If the Government are serious about supporting the steel industry, they should also be serious about accountability, value for money and a credible long-term plan, and these amendments are designed to deliver exactly that.

It is a huge pleasure to speak in a debate on a Bill to nationalise British Steel, reversing one of the many mistakes of the Thatcher Government in the 1980s. I will speak against new clause 9, in the name of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), which would seek a private buyer for the nationalised British Steel company.

It is absolutely right that the Government are taking action to nationalise British Steel and set out a clear strategy to strengthen domestic production. While the strategy will safeguard our steelmaking capability, we must recognise the realities facing the downstream steel sector, which has been impacted by having to compete with the unfair terms of international markets and by being consistently starved of investment. Many such businesses, including those in my constituency, depend on imported grades and products that the UK simply does not produce and that are regularly used in our defence force, the automotive industry and construction.

I also oppose new clause 11, which would require the Government to create a level playing field between nationally owned and private sector businesses. While I support in principle the use of quotas and tariffs to back British Steel, we must avoid unintended consequences for the downstream industry. Sudden or poorly calibrated changes risk undermining downstream firms. These businesses are vital in constituencies such as mine, and supporting domestic production must not come at the expense of the wider steel ecosystem. I have discussed these matters extensively with the Minister on several occasions, and I look forward to welcoming him to Stourbridge in the coming weeks to meet a local steel company.

Downstream companies have expressed legitimate concerns about the present proposals. I sincerely thank the Minister for engaging with me and them on these issues, but can he confirm whether, in cases where particular steel grades are not currently produced domestically, including zero-carbon grades, the Government intend to allow exemptions from the proposed tariff and quota regime? The most recent stance is that tariffs and quotas will be reviewed in 12 months’ time, but I really fear that that will be too late for some businesses. Will he consider transitional arrangements at the very least to offer some stability to the downstream industry?

I will also speak against new clause 12, which would limit the financial assistance that can be provided under the Bill. While supporting British Steel, we cannot ignore the climate crisis. Our steel industry must be driven towards green, decarbonised production. On that point, the steel strategy states an ambition to transition to carbon-neutral steel production with electric arc furnaces when market conditions allow. It is worth noting that SSAB in my constituency, which is part-owned by the Swedish Government, imports zero-carbon steel from Sweden, where such steel—its only by-product is water—has been produced using electric arc furnaces since the 1980s.

Following the Government’s introduction of an investment debt rule in 2024, I encourage the Minister to consider what further flexibility there could be to use a similar investment method to enable the transition away from coal-based steel production. I hope that he will reflect on those points and continue to engage well with the industry. With the right decisions, I believe that we can secure a competitive, resilient and low-carbon steel sector for the future.

There is those three lions on my shirt, our NHS, the joy of holding a brolly over a barbie on another washed-out bank holiday Monday, that sweet smell of fish and chips on a Friday, a Mr Whippy on the beach, strawberries and cream at Wimbledon, His Majesty the King, the pageantry of trooping the colour, nil points at Eurovision, Fifa Ultimate Team, “Strictly” at Christmas, a “Gavin and Stacey” special, Monty Python, that Geri Halliwell dress, Phil Mitchell, James Bond, KSI, corgis, Larry the cat, Ant and Dec, accents, having that main character energy—and steel. Steel is to the UK what Yorkshire tea and Yorkshire puds are to God’s own county, what hotpot is to Lancashire and what black cabs are to London. It is about us. It is about what makes us and drives us. It is about pride.

Before I turn to new clauses 12 and 4 and amendments 20 and 7, which I am against, I want to begin with Martin Welch. Today marks 48 years since Martin began working at Scunthorpe steelworks, and he is now its longest-serving employee. That is 48 years of skill, graft, and loyalty to an industry that has helped to build this country. Martin has also been a champion of safety for his coworkers, standing up for people who are doing difficult, skilled and sometimes dangerous work. When we debate steel, we are debating people like Martin, families like his, and communities whose working lives, pride and futures are bound up with the future of British steel.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. He has just made the point that I wanted to make, which is that we surely cannot make an ideological decision that it is always right to put national assets of sovereign capacity back into the private sector when, over generations, private industry has singularly failed to make the steel industry flourish. Does my hon. Friend agree?

I absolutely agree. This is not about heritage or the sentimental value of steel, although those things are of course important. Steel means something to people in their hearts, but, with a business brain, this is just about doing the right thing for the industry and for our country, our people and our communities.

Steel is part of who we are. It is in the homes we need to build, the railways we need to renew, the energy infrastructure we need to deliver and the defence capability we need to protect our country, and it is in the skilled work, pride and industrial strength of communities that have already given more than enough to Britain. This debate is not only about a steelworks; it is about whether Britain is prepared to act like a serious industrial nation again. For too long, we have been too casual about losing the things that make us strong: factories, skills, supply chains, ownership and industrial capacity. We have allowed strategic British assets to pass out of British hands and then pretended that ownership does not matter. It absolutely does.

In Dunscroft, Hatfield, Rossington, Thorne and Moorends, people know what happens when a major industry is allowed to collapse. They do not need a lecture in industrial policy; they and their families have lived through it, and their towns still live with the consequences. The loss of coalmining was not just an economic event but a social rupture. It damaged local economies because it damaged confidence. It damaged pride and the sense that the country valued the people and the places that powered it. That damage is still visible 40 years later.

When people say that the Government intervention is too bold, too risky or too ambitious, I say that they need to look at the cost of not acting. Doing nothing is not free. It has costs for jobs, skills, supply chain resilience, industrial communities and national capabilities. It leaves Britain less able to build, less able to defend itself and less able to stand on its own two feet. That is not prudence; that is managed decline, and I did not come into this place and into politics to manage decline.

This Bill says that when a foundational industry is at risk, when thousands of skilled jobs are at stake, and when national resilience is on the line, the Government do not have to stand aside and hope the market sorts it out. The market has not sorted this out. Decades of decline, under-investment and foreign ownership have brought us to this point. The choice before us is not between some perfect private sector solution and public ownership. The real choice is between responsible public action now or allowing a vital national capability to disappear. We cannot allow that.

Some of the amendments before us seem to start from the idea that Government intervention is dangerous. I disagree: the danger is delay and timidity. The danger is pretending that rigid caps, lengthy processes and automatic routes back to private sale are the same thing as responsibility. Managed risk is not recklessness; managed risk is leadership. If we keep doing the same safe things, we will keep getting the same results. Those results are the decline that people keep voting for us to change—the change that I come to this House to be part of.

This is a time to be bold and to step up. This is a time to take well-managed risks in the public interest. There are times to seize the bloody obvious and deliver for the country, and this is one of them. For the workers at Scunthorpe, for the families across my constituency who depend on those jobs, for the industrial communities that know exactly what happens when the Government walk away, and for the future strength of this country, I support this Bill. Britain needs steel, Britain needs British assets in British hands, and Britain needs a Government with the confidence to act in the national interest.

This Bill is a welcome step in the right direction. It turns the tide on 40 years of ideological self-sabotage. That is why amendments that would delay, dilute, cap arbitrarily or force a route back to failed models should be resisted. This Bill deserves the support of the Committee today.

It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher). What a passionate speech—I hope I can do half as well as him.

At the outset, I should state that I am a long-term and proud member of Community trade union. I thoroughly welcome the Bill, which takes additional steps forward from the legislation we passed last year. I am especially happy that the Bill is UK-wide and covers Scotland, too.

I want to touch on my concerns regarding new clauses 4 and 12, which seek to limit the level of financial support that the Government can provide. Given that the provisions in the Bill are designed to be used only in emergency and necessary situations, such amendments seem unwise. Over decades, we have seen Conservative Governments let down the steel sector time and time again by failing to support and invest. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the Conservatives are seeking to bring into the Bill unnecessary and debilitating restrictions that are based on politics rather than the needs of the steel sector.

When I asked the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), about this point, it was instructive that we heard her resort to saying, “It is just about being kept in touch.” The new clauses say that the private sector is always the way to go, but we know from our long history with the steel industry that that idea has often led to private companies coming in, mismanaging or indeed closing British steelmaking companies, and us seeing sovereign capability disappear overseas. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that the Government can always act in the national interest by rejecting the new clauses?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is certainly the experience we have had in Motherwell in my constituency, where a questionable buyer for Dalzell has caused many problems. I will go into that later in my speech.

I am disappointed, and surprised, that the Liberal Democrats are seeking an even more restrictive limit on potential support. For us, Motherwell became the unwilling emblem of the Tories letting the steel industry down in the 1980s, with the closure of Ravenscraig and the subsequent loss of thousands of jobs across the area. It has taken decades even to begin to repair the damage that was done at that time.

In recent years, the Tory Government failed to prevent cheap imports and to bring in the investment and strategy that were needed to protect what was left of our steel industry. I therefore feel that Members on the Opposition Benches have an absolute brass neck in trying to put limitations on this Labour Government’s ability to breathe life back into it.

The hon. Lady referred specifically to our new clause. Does she not accept that we are merely asking for a further parliamentary vote if the proposed consideration for transfer exceeds a certain level, and that that is a sensible and workable way forward? Not only do we need to be open to the possibility of enabling the Government to take steel into national hands, but taxpayers’ interests need to be protected, and Parliament needs to have oversight of any decision of that nature.

If we brought the Government to Parliament every time we wanted them to intervene when there was an emergency, we would not be able to react effectively, so I do not accept that that is necessary.

It would take just hours to do that. All we are asking for is a safeguard. Without any kind of safeguard, what does the hon. Lady think would be an acceptable amount for the Government to offer in exchange for taking on a steel undertaking? Does she think that no limit at all would be acceptable? We are merely proposing that a motion should be laid before Parliament to be voted on, and that does not take much time.

This legislation is designed for extraordinary situations, so we are going to have to agree to disagree on that point.

Motherwell remains the home of steel in Scotland. While the immediate and particular focus of the Bill is, understandably, on the manufacturer British Steel, I want to take the opportunity to highlight the plight of what is currently our only Scottish steelworks: the Dalzell plate mill.

The Bill suggests three potential factors that can be considered in the assessment of whether it is in the public interest to nationalise a steel company or facility. Is the plant part of the supply chain for our defence industry, thus contributing to our national security? Is it necessary for the building and/or the maintenance of parts of our national infrastructure? Does it support the local or national economy? I would argue that the Dalzell plate mill is essential to all three of those elements of our country’s progress and security, and that we would be demonstrably better off if it was supported back to full operation.

When Sanjeev Gupta took over the plant almost a decade ago, he presented a vision of a bright future for Dalzell in a “green steel” era, but that has not come to pass. Like others, the plant has suffered as a result of the onslaught of cheap imports and the global events that our wider economy has faced, but Liberty has largely been unable to provide the funds or leadership needed to make Dalzell a success during its time at the helm, with repeated failures to deliver the raw steel that is required for the plant to fulfil orders and with staff left without work. There have been regular promises of materials and work being on the way, but more often than not they have been stalled or unfulfilled.

The current situation for the team of dedicated and highly skilled staff at Dalzell is difficult to imagine. The majority of them have spent most of the last two years at home on furlough, receiving less than their full pay. A skeleton workforce of about 20 is keeping the mill ticking over, ensuring that it is clean and maintained and that necessary paperwork is completed. They want to be ready to go as soon as an order comes in.

It is really sad that we have got to that point. Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole point of making bold decisions and taking a bit of risk is that it gives people aspiration for the future? It is about getting the next generation of children to set their minds on having jobs and careers in steel and manufacturing, working on the shop floor and having camaraderie. They need to envisage a future in which people have a regular, great income and support their local community and economy.

I share the vision of my hon. Friend, and that is exactly what I for Dalzell in Motherwell. At the moment we have staff who are worried each month about whether they are going to get paid, as they see troubling headlines and hear rumours about their parent company. I am becoming increasingly concerned about the mental health and wellbeing of the team, who have been left in an impossible limbo. Most of them want to be back in the workplace, in a job that they are proud of, and to be contributing to our country’s economy, security and infrastructure.

The workforce in Dalzell has now dwindled to 100—about a third of the full capacity. Predictably, key skilled team members are eventually leaving. These are people who are irreplaceable, because they have a unique combination of skills, qualifications and years of experience. Despite the team’s best efforts, the mill has not been used properly for a period of time, so the equipment and technology used in Dalzell is at risk of being dated and damaged out of value.

The hon. Member speaks with passion and cares about her constituents. It seems that what she is saying is in parallel with my earlier intervention about the risk of losing the skills of working with steel—welding and suchlike. Does she share my disappointment, but perhaps not surprise, that there is no member of the Scottish National party with us today? We know that the Scottish Government set their face against all new nuclear in Scotland, but we would welcome an SMR at Dounreay in Caithness.

The hon. Member might agree that the Scottish Government are not helpful on defence either. She talks about leadership and shouldering the responsibility, but we have a gap—

Order. Mr Stone, we are here to debate the steel industry, not new nuclear or the pros and cons of the Scottish Government. Perhaps it is better if we stay within the confines of this Bill.

When it comes to Dalzell, the SNP Government have not been helpful. They previously stepped in when the steelworks went into administration, and then they sold it to the current owner, who has been less than helpful.

The hon. Lady is making a very powerful case for the importance of the heavy plate mill in her constituency, and of having the right owners of critical steelmaking capability and the functions around it. What we have seen with the failed ownership of Jingye, and with the failed ownership and fibs of companies such as Liberty, is that if we rely on an unaligned basis, without any care for the strategic importance of steelmaking, we end up in the pickle that we are in. That is why I think the hon. Lady makes a powerful case for the importance of the plate mill in the UK’s overall steel strategy going forward.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just like yesterday, this second day of debate has been incredibly considered and collaborative. I very much thank everyone for contributing, just as they did yesterday.

Having listened very carefully to the debate, I think many of the proposed amendments and new clauses fall into categories to do with the good use of public money in relation to valuations and liabilities, and to the role of this Parliament in scrutiny and reporting. I say at the outset, and I think this was put quite well by my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke (Pamela Nash)—she did so in an intervention I had slightly forgotten about—that the Government are trying to strike a balance. We must strike a balance between the essential nature of government, with our public accountability and also the obvious bureaucracy, and the commercial demands of business. I think we have found the balance in the right place, and as I address some of the amendments, I hope to convince hon. Members that we have given due consideration to that.

Many Members, quite understandably, have highlighted specific cases in the steel industry that they believe the Government should consider. We have heard very powerfully about the plate mill at Dalzell and we have also heard about British Steel. However, this Bill is not targeted at any particular steel company; it provides powers to the Secretary of State to act in the national interest.

This is not my specialist subject, so I ask the Minister to bear with me. Thames Covers in Shepperton in my Spelthorne constituency, which is a boat fitter, has been told that the cost of stainless steel tubing will go up by 50% from 1 July because of a new tariff kicking in. As I understand it, the tariff is to encourage people to buy British Steel, but the trouble is that British Steel does not make stainless steel tubing, so it will add a huge cost. The Minister says the Bill is not about individual businesses, but about overall governance. However, the Government may be causing unintended consequences, and perhaps the impact assessments we are calling for in new clause 7 would be a good idea.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for taking the trouble to make that intervention. A number of Members have talked about downstream steel, so although it is not precisely within the scope of this Bill—and, in fact, I do not think those impact assessments would address that point—perhaps I could address their comments.

Members have mentioned several different companies. This morning, I had a very constructive discussion with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), about specific instances, but she also pressed me on the concerns of many Members across the whole House. There are concerns about the introduction of the new trade measures from 1 July. I have, with the co-operation of Members from across the House, been able to gather specific examples from a number of different companies around the country that are concerned.

I am engaging with my officials and it is a matter of detail for each company. Some are finding that they will still be able to access the steels, because the measures are targeted at steels that are either currently produced or could be produced in the UK. Some have a concern because the steels that could be produced are produced primarily as speciality steels, or perhaps at Dalzell plate mill, as we have heard—certainly, the measures should incentivise some production there. Owing to the nature of the trade measures—they are grouped under eight broad categories, rather than extremely specific grade codes—some grades that are not made in the UK, such as seamless tubes, could be drawn into that. That is where quotas are important, so it is really an assessment of whether the quotas are right. Again, we have been able to provide reassurance on those instances.

However, I would never claim that the Government are infallible—I am certainly not—so that is why it has been very important to collect information and take action. In fact, I can inform the hon. Gentleman that tomorrow I am co-chairing a meeting with the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), in whose area this matter strictly falls, to talk specifically to downstream businesses. I would like to acknowledge not only Members, but the Confederation of British Metalforming and the British Constructional Steelwork Association, which have worked with me so closely on this matter.

On that point, will the Minister give way?

Will the Minister give way?

Yes, I will take two interventions.

Order. I just want to make it clear that I did allow some latitude, but this is a debate on the nationalisation of the steel industry, not tariffs.

Okay. I am happy to give way and we will see what the Members have to say.

Simply to follow up, Ms Nokes, on the point the Minister was making about exemptions for individual companies, Hanson Springs in Rochdale relies heavily on imports of steel of a particular length. Will the Minister reassure us that, as with the shadow Minister, he will be engaging with many businesses to ensure that they are not hit by tariffs and that the Bill will not harm them?

I am going to allow the Minister to respond, but I am not going to allow this to turn into a debate on tariffs and how they may or may not impact individual companies around the entire country, which I fear is where we are headed.

Thank you, Ms Nokes. Perhaps it would be helpful for me to take the second intervention and respond just once.

I recently met a local steel business to discuss this issue and how it can source more British steel in line with the principles of the Bill. It raised with me a keen desire to source as much as possible in Britain, but it is not sure if it can actually source all the products it needs in Britain. It mentioned hot rolled coil as one example. The business is called Fowle & Co. and it would be great if the Minister could commit for his officials to meet my local business and hear its experience.

I am aware of the issue with the springs company raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). I think it is particularly an issue around 13 metre bars. My office is arranging a meeting with the company concerned. I am also aware of the issue on hot rolled coil and am addressing that, too.

I assure the Chamber that I shall not mention power of any particular sort. Will the Minister, if he has not done so, think about having a word with the Scottish Government and how they might help him in his endeavours?

I am always very happy to receive help from everywhere, but the Scottish Government could help themselves by taking a more proactive approach to nuclear, as the hon. Gentleman identified earlier. The Scottish economy could benefit from that.

Let me make some progress. I want to turn to the parts of the Bill that Members have raised in the debate, and thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the shadow Minister for the amendments they have tabled. Amendment 4 was one of the amendments intended to extend reporting requirements around financial assistance and compensation under section 52. In the case of compensation, that is of course a one-off payment and so the question of regular reporting does not arise.

On the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, to which the hon. Lady spoke earlier, amendment 6 is about taking into account ETS, CBAM and so on in valuations.

A number of comments were made about valuations and the role of the independent valuer, which we will also touch on when we consider the new clauses on capping compensation. It is particularly important that we draw a distinction between the role of Government and that of the independent valuer here, which goes back to some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. It is a serious and rare intervention that the Government are making, and one that should happen only when there is a market failure or a company is in distress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although Plaid Cymru Members are not present, another Welsh Member is. With the Minister mentioning the available funding, I will take the opportunity to raise a topical matter with him, which is the catastrophic fire that took place on the pickle line last week in Port Talbot. I want to put on the record our thanks to the emergency services and the steelworkers who worked so hard to contain it, as I know from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock). The work is now being transferred to Llanwern, but it is a worrying time for those at Port Talbot. Does the Minister agree that, alongside the Bill, we must protect the jobs in the south Wales steel industry and ensure that they are fully equipped to support the expansion of sovereign steel that we all want to see as we go forward?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 7.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 52 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Financial assistance

Amendment proposed: 20, page 39, line 7, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State may only provide financial assistance under this section if they are satisfied that financial assistance will secure value for money.”—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Before we proceed to the next business, I have a short statement to make. I have received a report from the Tellers in the No Lobby on the Division that took place in Committee of the whole House at 8.27 pm yesterday on new clause 2 to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill. The hon. Members for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) have informed me that the number of no votes was erroneously reported as 257, rather than 251. I will direct the Clerk to correct the numbers in the Journal accordingly. The ayes were 65 and the noes were 251.

—[Official Report, 8 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 111.]

Third Reading

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Government believe in Britain’s steel future. This Bill will help to transform that belief into a reality. It will ensure that the long-term vision for our UK steel sector is realised, helping to restore domestic production to sustainable levels and to support this Government’s economic growth plans. This Bill provides powers for the Government to bring steel companies into public ownership, subject to the public interest test being met.

In many ways, the progress of this Bill has shown the House at its very best, with passion, insight and determination to take action in the national interest. We had an excellent and wide-ranging debate, with Members from all parts of the House recognising the importance of passing this legislation. Let me begin by thanking Members for their time and their thoughts. I express my gratitude to those who have contributed to the passage of this Bill so far, especially those who have taken a particular interest in ensuring that we get the details of this vital piece of legislation right.

I also take a moment to recognise those working in and supporting our steelmaking communities. Every day, they make a vital contribution to our country’s economic security. During the passage of this Bill, we have heard much about the specific situation at British Steel Ltd, and in particular about its current ownership status.

Let me be frank with the House: our decision to proceed with this Bill—to take these powers now—has absolutely nothing to do with the national origin of the current owners, Jingye. We have always been and remain country-agnostic about the current ownership. We simply believe that the British public interest should be paramount in determinations about future ownership. We continue to welcome international investment into the UK, including from China. We remain committed to our legal and international obligations to overseas business and foreign investors. We are fully compliant with our treaty undertakings to protect overseas investors and businesses operating in the United Kingdom.

While this Government need to take steps to secure UK Steel’s capability, we are committed to doing so in a manner that respects the rights of businesses. When and where the Government exercise the transfer powers in the Bill, an independent valuer will be appointed to determine what compensation, if any, is payable. The Bill requires a clear public interest test and provides for a compensation scheme where that might be relevant. The Government fully respect the rights of businesses and investors subject to this Bill. We will continue at all times to act fairly, regardless of the nationality or background of those businesses.

I place on record my thanks to parliamentary counsel and officials in my Department for their hard work on drafting and guiding the passage of this Bill. I also thank the Clerks, the Doorkeepers, Hansard and all of the House and its authorities for making the passage of this legislation possible. Let me also, on a personal note, pay tribute to the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald). A lifetime of dedication to the steel sector has brought valuable insight, passion and creative parliamentarian work to the Bill, which has enriched the debate in this place.

The House has sent a clear message about the importance of decisive action to safeguard the future of the steel industry. Since I became Secretary of State, I have championed an activist, interventionist industrial policy—activist, because the years of standing back and watching British industry decline are over; interventionist, because we, like other Governments around the world both right and left, from the United States to France and Germany, step in to invest, modernise and protect our industries. Our policy is both activist and interventionist, because purpose without action is merely rhetoric, and acting without purpose is performative, not strategic. The Bill is action with a purpose, and the purpose is clear: to invest in, modernise and protect Britain’s steel.

I am encouraged to witness the strength of support in the Chamber for this activist, interventionist Bill. As it moves to the other place, let me reiterate my commitment to continued engagement with parliamentarians as it completes its passage and we ensure that the Government’s vision for Britain’s steel sector becomes a reality. I commend the Bill to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

I think it has been clear throughout these two days of debate that none of us in the House underestimates the importance of the steel industry to our national economy, to our industrial resilience, and to the communities whose livelihoods depend on it. We can all agree that steel matters, and that steel jobs matter. However, we also believe that the responsible stewardship of taxpayers’ money matters, and despite the eloquent way in which the Secretary of State expressed his views on the Bill, we see it much more as a chaotic and unplanned intervention. It is not the product of a clear steel industrial strategy, but the product of a failure to negotiate a better outcome. The negotiated outcome was a possibility; the Secretary of State even went to China to try to achieve it.

It is the failure to address the root causes of the industry’s difficulties that has brought us to where we are today. The Bill could also be described as the steel industry blank cheque Bill, because it fails to protect the public purse from potentially vast and open-ended liabilities. Nationalisation does not solve the underlying issue that is making domestic steel production unprofitable. The higher employment costs, higher energy costs, planning issues, carbon pricing, regulation and levies associated with the Government’s net zero policies continue to weigh heavily on the sector, and the Bill does nothing to resolve those pressures. Instead, it transfers them wholesale on to the taxpayer.

We should reflect on how we came to this point. Not long ago, the Government told the House that they did not want to nationalise British Steel—indeed, that was presented as a last resort to be avoided—and yet here we are, because the Government have failed to negotiate an alternative. We see once again that when this Government negotiate, it is the taxpayer who picks up the bill. Since the intervention began last year, on that historic Saturday, the cost has already run to more than £1.3 million every single day. That is a bill for the taxpayer that will only become larger with this legislation. The Bill exposes the public finances to further liabilities—contingent liabilities, not only substantial but, alarmingly, potentially unlimited in terms of both their scale and their duration. This is a Government getting a blank cheque forever.

The root cause of why we have the Bill is that the previous Conservative Government sold this business to Jingye in 2019. Another root cause is net zero, which was introduced by the Conservative Government. Surely what the Conservative party should do is show some humility about why we are here and support the Bill.

Surely what the hon. Member should do is welcome the fact that our party is under new and outstanding leadership. We believe that politicians should not be in the business of running commercial enterprises, but I can see that that is the political position of the Reform party. The risks of inefficiency, political interference and poor capital allocation are very well known.

It is a bit rich to be lectured on support for party leadership from someone on the Labour Benches, so I will move on swiftly.

This Bill sets a precedent. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment says that expropriating assets in this way risks undermining the investor confidence that we need at this precise moment, when the UK needs to attract inward investment into strategic industries.

Throughout our Committee considerations, we have sought to improve this legislation to introduce better transparency for Parliament, to limit liability and to ensure proper parliamentary oversight. I thank my team, the team of Clerks, the whipping team and you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Throughout this process, our amendments were responsible safeguards; they were designed to protect the taxpayer and to impose discipline on the Government. Their rejection only reinforces our concern that Ministers are unwilling to confront the full implications of their own policy.

As we come to Third Reading, the choice is clear. This Bill risks enormous cost, offers insufficient answers, and sends troubling signals about the UK as a place to do business. We cannot support it in its current form. We will not vote against its Third Reading today, but for the sake of the taxpayer, the health of the steel sector and the credibility of industrial policy in this country, we cannot support it either.

In my constituency of Darlington, we know the economic importance of the steel industry, and many of my constituents bear the scars of the Conservative party’s unwavering worship of the global free market. Regardless of the social, economic, community or security costs, they badly let us down. The last Government refused to step in for our highly skilled essential steel workers in Redcar, leading to the loss of thousands of jobs and the closure of a 170-year-old industry, and thousands more jobs in the supply chain were lost.

The Conservatives demanded a cap on the cost to the Treasury for this essential intervention to protect out sovereign steel capacity, which shows that they still do not get it. It shows their fundamental misunderstanding of the mistakes they made while they were in government. Despite their historic defeat, they refuse to accept that their inaction on steel has already cost the taxpayer dearly, and not only in significant employment tax contributions but in the business contributions of this critical industry’s supply chain. It is their inaction that chilled investment.

We know that thriving supply chains boost local employment and incubate home-grown entrepreneurs. They boost confidence locally, and industrial communities such as ours support and cultivate thriving, close-knit business ecosystems—something that we in Darlington still benefit from greatly, despite the closure of SSI, Cleveland Bridge and British Steel on Whessoe Road.

The vacant South Works site in Darlington, which is currently available to rent, is 131,000 square feet and comes with three cranes. If anyone is looking for a magnificent industrial steel site in the heart of the country’s most investable town, please do contact me, and I will happily negotiate and advocate for a discounted rent from the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice).

The pride that our community has in a critical, century-old industry cannot be overstated. It is vital for wellbeing, but it is security that is essential for growth. People employed in critical industries, whether self-employed, businesses or workers, can afford to spend locally—they have the confidence to get the kitchen done, or take the family out for a meal. It is insecurity that chills investment and growth. By securing this critical sovereign industry, this Labour Government are demonstrating and living our values, and delivering on the change that we were sent here to make.

The difference could not be more clear: where the last Government allowed an essential, critical, highly skilled, historical British industry to be decimated by inaction and ignorance, this Labour Government promote our most qualified steel industry expert to the Front Bench to protect high-skilled jobs, stand up for our supply chains, champion our communities and nationalise steel in the national interest—and I, for one, say all power to them.

As Members will be aware, part of the Scunthorpe steelworks site falls within my Brigg and Immingham constituency. As such, hundreds of my constituents work there, and hundreds more are employed in the supply chain. With that in mind, I made it known to my constituents a number of weeks ago that I would support this Bill. It could have been improved, and the Opposition tabled some perfectly sensible amendments, which I supported. However, having got to this stage, I think it is only right that we give our full support to the business and, more importantly, to the workers employed there. I thank the Minister with responsibility for steel. We have had a number of meetings in recent weeks, and he has been extremely helpful.

As I said in a previous contribution to this debate, it is not natural for me as a Conservative to support a nationalisation Bill, but the reality is that it is of course a restructuring. The existing position whereby the Chinese own the business and the Government in effect run it is clearly unsustainable, and we cannot allow that to continue, so it is a perfectly sensible move. I was reassured by what the Minister said in yesterday’s debate about the Government looking for private sector involvement, whether that be a wholesale sale or a partnership arrangement. I have met two or three groups that are interested in investing in the sector. Indeed, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) and I had quite an interesting evening a few weeks ago listening to what was, I think it is fair to say, quite an ambitious plan for steel, so there are organisations and businesses that are prepared to invest.

Scunthorpe without steel would not be Scunthorpe. As a resident of Grimsby, I have witnessed what can happen to a town when it loses its core industry—in the case of Grimsby, it was of course the deep-sea fishing industry—and when that happens, it takes about two generations for the local economy to be able to sustain the jobs that are necessary. On that basis, I will certainly be supporting the Bill.

The Minister was not quite 100% clear when challenged about the continuation of production in blast furnaces. I know the situation, and I recognise that a long-term move to electric arc furnaces is perhaps the only way to sustain the industry and the jobs in Scunthorpe. So I await developments with interest, but at this stage I welcome the Bill, which is a sensible way forward and has my full support.

I welcome the contributions from both sides of the House, in particular from the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers). Like him, I represent an industrial constituency. My constituency in north Wales sadly holds the record, in any western country, for the largest number of industrial redundancies in one day. I think it speaks to all the constituencies affected that that goes through not just generations, but families—different generations of the same family. Many of my constituents have been affected, as have I personally.

The most exciting thing about how the Government have been very decisive on working to support and encourage British-made steel is not only what it does for just the steel sector, but what it says about our ambition to have proud, decent, good-quality jobs back in the UK. I thank everyone who has contributed. It is an absolute privilege for my communities to vote the Bill through today.

With the leave of the House, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) for her passionate speech and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) for her heartfelt speech just now. Those are the kinds of contributions that give heart and soul to what we are trying to achieve, and that give voice to the communities affected. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for his contribution. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.