PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill - 21 May 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

The reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.

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

For generations, the steel industry has stood at the very heart of our national story. From the furnaces of Sheffield to the docks of Port Talbot, from Scunthorpe to Redcar, steel forged not only the railways, ships, bridges and factories that powered the industrial revolution, it built communities, livelihoods and a sense of pride in Britain. Steel made in Britain built our Navy, helped to defend our freedoms in times of war and laid the foundations for modern infrastructure right around the world. When people speak of the United Kingdom becoming a great industrial nation, they speak of the skill, resilience and determination of the steelworkers who helped to shape that destiny by the fruits of their labour.

The decline of the steel industry destroyed jobs, diminished skills and damaged communities, but it never, ever diluted the pride, resilience and determination of those working people. Today, this Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill repays, in part, the debt that we owe Britain’s steel communities. Steel is integral to the key growth-driving sectors of our industrial strategy: to advanced manufacturing and the car industry; to clean energy, in our wind turbines and our grid infrastructure; and to security and defence, in fighter jets, battleships and submarines. It is essential to this Government’s growth mission to create a strong, resilient economy delivering for working people. That is why Britain’s steel sector accounts for thousands of jobs, right across the country.

For the reasons that the Secretary of State has mentioned, the nationalisation of the steel industry is a noble endeavour, with which many of us from across the House will agree, but there are people in Wales pointing to the fact that, despite there being legislation, Port Talbot has lost thousands of jobs. Does he recognise the feelings that remain in Wales because the option of nationalisation by this Government was not on the table at the time?

As the right hon. Lady knows, I have been to Port Talbot and I have launched a steel strategy since this Government came into office. The vast majority of the decline that she describes happened under the previous Administration. We are cleaning up the mess on a whole bunch of fronts and in different areas of our public life. This Government have invested £500 million into that plant, and we have launched a steel strategy that I believe will give it a fruitful and prosperous future. We are doing what it takes to be the partner needed in these times.

The nationalisation of the steel industry explicitly links our domestic and international policies. It demonstrates the need for us to go out and champion our steel sector by filling its order books, as we have been able to do because of the wonderful trade deal created with Nigeria, which is expanding its ports and railways, that has been achieved by this Government. That is the type of work that I am doing in southern Africa, and it is the type of work that we should all be going out to do on behalf of our country and our growth agenda.

The work that my hon. Friend is doing is incredibly important to fulfilling the mission, and the possibility that the British steel sector has in the 2020s and going forward. That is the purpose of having a strategy where we invest and modernise, and then at times we need to protect as well. These are the things that we are doing to deliver a long-term, sustainable and global future for Britain’s steel industry.

I have two quick questions for the Secretary of State. First, if the Bill passes, how are the global competitors to British forged steel likely to react? Secondly, if our steel becomes more expensive than the global market norm, what choice will manufacturers in the UK be faced with about where to base their manufacturing?

I am not sure why the right hon. Gentleman would think that British steel would be more expensive as a result, but let us take one step back: if we did not protect, there would be no steel sector to export in the first place. That is why I took the decision to invest, to modernise and to protect where needed. If this Government had continued on the same trajectory that we inherited from the previous Government, I would fear for any steelworks at all being capable to export, let alone producing domestic supply as well. This is the future that we are now creating.

On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?

I am going to make some progress because the debate has been cut short. I have taken a few interventions and I am sure I will find time for the right hon. Gentleman to intervene later in my opening remarks, but first let me make a bit of progress.

I have pledged to ensure that Britain retains its capacity and capability to manufacture steel. It is a commitment that I have made to hon. Members in this House and it is my commitment to the steel communities of this country. This House acted last year to support British Steel, which is one of the country’s most vital steel firms. We recalled Parliament to pass the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 so that the company’s blast furnaces could remain lit and its workforce could remain protected. I am grateful to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for his leadership during that time, and I am grateful to the House for supporting that vital piece of legislation.

When we intervened then, we were certain that there was a future for British Steel. Our determination now is that the future may best be served by full public ownership in the national interest, not because of ideology, but because of practical pragmatism. Public ownership would allow us to explore future opportunities for the company and to retain its vital resource as a critical piece of our national infrastructure—one that is essential to our economic resilience. I want British Steel to play its part in driving up our domestic steel production to ensure that 50% of the steel used in this country is made in this country.

In keeping open the options that the Secretary of State hints at, has he had any discussions with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence? At least for the foreseeable future, there will always be a need for virgin steel for certain defence applications.

The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. This Government are determined to make, produce and use more steel from the British sector in lots of different areas of the economy, and we want to ensure that we are using Government spending and procurement in driving up steel production in the UK.

I had the privilege to visit the Agratas gigafactory in Somerset. It is in a different sector, but it is using 231 tonnes of British steel in its production. That is using an amount of Government investment as well, so it has Government investment and private sector investment and is using British steel. That shows that when we align our priorities, we can drive up demand for British steel.

The public value test is a high test, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that is the case on seeing and reading the legislation, as he has done.

I have set the bar high enough that this power would be triggered only in extraordinary circumstances. These are things that we can test in Committee in the coming days—I believe that will be next week. [Interruption.] It will be in the next sitting week, when we return from recess. Do not worry; we are not recalling Parliament again. I will address this matter a bit more in my speech. This power will not be used routinely; it is a specific power, and the test for it will be high.

I will make some progress.

To that end, we began negotiations in good faith with Jingye, the owner of British Steel, to see if a commercial sale was viable, but that did not prove to be possible. We could not agree terms that would have safeguarded simultaneously the integrity of the business and the interests of the taxpayer. That is why the Prime Minister announced the Government’s intention to bring British Steel into public ownership, subject to the public interest test being met at the time of that decision. That is why we need to pass the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill now, to give us the power to make that possible.

Let me be clear to the House. In answer to the question from the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the powers given to the Government by the legislation cannot be exercised without due caution and proper care. These powers are bold, but they are not boundless. They can be used only where there is a clear public interest and where they will be needed to safeguard British steelmaking capability. The Bill does not nationalise British Steel in and of itself, but it grants the Government powers to do so if considered necessary. That is the scope of the legislation we are debating today.

I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s intervention. I knew when I was bringing these powers in and working through the legislation that they would be an important part of the Bill and rightly the subject of scrutiny. There will be significant time in Committee of the whole House for Members to scrutinise the legislation. We are modelling this Bill on the Banking Act 2009, which has worked effectively. In that circumstance, the powers were used during the financial crisis in extremis, and those powers, on which we are modelling this Bill, have not been used irresponsibly since. I have been clear about my expected use of these powers, and the bar set in the legislation meets my expectations, including limiting my ability to use these powers in ways that would cause concern for Members.

For too long, the steel sector in this country has been left to fend for itself, abandoned by Government, demoralised, starved of resources and the victim of international market distortions. Crude steel production has declined by more than 50% in the past decade. Capabilities have been reduced, and communities have been let down. Previous Governments have been too reactive and not proactive. This Government will not repeat the errors of the past. We are building the future for British Steel. While the industry faces challenges today, we will do everything we can to help it modernise and grow. This legislation allows us to apply that policy to this industry. We recognise that securing the long-term future of the UK steel sector relies on public and private investment for modernisation, so that the UK can become a global leader in clean green steel, electric arc furnaces and decarbonised steel production.

We recognise that blast furnace production will need to continue in the immediate future and that a managed transition is vital to maintaining supply. We need this legislation to raise resilience, to protect businesses up and down the country that depend on Britain’s steel, to defend the workforce at British Steel and to safeguard the communities built on British steel. The significance of steel is not simply a matter of history; it is a matter of our national future. In an uncertain world, the ability to make steel remains a strategic national asset. Steel is essential for our transport networks, our energy security, our housing and our transition to a greener economy. That is why supporting the British steel industry is about more than protecting jobs, important though they are. Supporting British Steel—

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I will give way in just a moment. Supporting British Steel is about more than national pride, although we are proud of the steelworkers who help build it. Nationalising British Steel is about hope and faith in the future.

I did not mean to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but I thought this was an appropriate time to intervene. As a member of the GMB trade union executive council, I was pleased to see my union welcome the Government’s move to nationalise British Steel, which it described as a

“decisive and timely intervention by the Government which will protect one of the UK’s most important industries.”

That sentiment has been echoed throughout the trade union movement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must engage with the trade unions throughout this process and utilise their expertise in this area to secure the long-term future of British Steel?

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. Workers in steel production facilities have played a really important role in shaping our policies, helping us constructively to find a way through. Members on both sides of the House were prodding me to release the steel strategy more swiftly, but there were so many moving parts at the time of developing it. There were global forces at work, different ownership models and different production facilities, with different challenges, in different parts of the steel community. I will say this again: the unions played a highly constructive role. I pay tribute to GMB, Community and others for helping us to design our policies and find a way through some really challenging strategic issues.

Together with our measures on automotives, digital technology, the life sciences, the defence industry, clean energy, ceramics and chemicals—on which we made announcements today—and advanced manufacturing, taking the power to make possible the nationalisation of British Steel heralds the new dawn of an age of British industrialisation.

Given that no UK steel producers produce the specialist grades of steel used by precision engineers such as Gibbs Gears in Stoke Mandeville, in my constituency, which supplies components for the aerospace and defence sectors, what is in this Bill for them? All they can see are incoming tariffs on the steel that they necessarily have to import because nobody makes it here.

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

Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

I am going to make a bit more progress.

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

Order. A lot of Members with a direct constituency interest rightly want to put their remarks on the record. There will be an immediate six-minute time limit for Back-Bench speeches, but we will very swiftly move to three minutes to enable as many Members as possible to speak on this important topic. I call the shadow Minister.

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill because it believes that politicians should not be running businesses; because expropriating businesses sets a precedent that will deter inward investment into other UK businesses; because the Bill exposes taxpayers to unlimited liabilities; because the powers that the Bill confers on Ministers are far wider in scope than would be required for its stated purpose; and because it fails to contain any measures that would address the issues which are currently making domestic production of steel unprofitable such as higher employment costs and policies in pursuit of net zero, such as carbon taxes and associated regulations and levies.”

Conservatives will never be neutral about the deindustrialisation of our country, but we do not believe that politicians or Whitehall bureaucrats should run businesses. Instead, we need a Government who do fewer things better, such as defending our nation, securing energy supplies and restoring the nation’s finances. We believe in British steelmaking and the importance of sovereign capabilities—not just steelworks, but the steel supply chain, critical minerals and many defence- related technologies—but that is not what this Bill does. This Bill is the Government’s attempt to break out of a mess we warned one year ago they were getting themselves into, and it fails even in the Government’s own terms. It does not keep the blast furnaces open and it does not guarantee that military needs can be met domestically.

Let us be clear what we are doing today. We are being asked to nationalise British Steel, and put the British taxpayer permanently on the hook for a business that this Government had every chance to keep in private hands, but chose not to. They ignored plans to open electric arc furnaces on Teesside, and chose to let the situation deteriorate until the only option left was the one that suited their ideology. The Prime Minister went kowtowing to China, gave it an embassy spy base and, instead of a deal on Jingye, came back with a box of fortune cookies with only a bill for the taxpayer to be found inside.

I just wish to seek some clarity from the hon. Gentleman. Is the Conservatives’ position that they would prefer British Steel in the hands of the Chinese than the British?

That was a waste of an intervention. If the hon. Member lets me continue, I will explain exactly what the Conservative plan is for British Steel, and it is a better plan and a more sustainable plan than we have heard from the Secretary of State today. This Government did not inherit—

As the shadow Minister was unable to respond to the previous intervention, would he like to explain why the Conservative Government sold British Steel to the Chinese in 2019 against my specific advice?

When it suits the hon. Gentleman, he claims to be a fan of the late Margaret Thatcher, but he seems to have forgotten that most of her time in office was spent untangling the mess of Labour’s past nationalisations. Unlike him, she did not bend with the wind or find herself in the same Lobby as a Government who have hiked taxes to record highs, driven wealth offshore and drowned business in red tape.

Members would like to know what our plan is, and our plan is to address the cause, not the symptoms. [Interruption.] Labour Members would do well to listen to this, and we might have more of a steel industry left if they do. We cannot have an industrial policy for steel without an energy policy for industry. Britain has the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, and every choice the Government are making has pushed those prices further up. This week, they voted against new licences in the North sea, choosing to import from Norway gas that could be drilled here, at a cost of 200,000 jobs and £12 billion in tax revenue.

The Secretary of State knows this and his Back Benchers know this, but the Prime Minister is too weak to stand up to his windmill-fetishist Energy Secretary. We have offered an alternative. Our cheap plan would slash energy prices and improve energy security. Why would the Government not want that? If they were genuinely interested in securing the future of steelmaking, as well as those of many other industries, they could have come here today and adopted that plan. Instead, this Bill is an indictment—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will happily give way, as long as the hon. Member is going to talk about our cheap energy plan.

I have heard that the hon. Gentleman thinks energy prices should come down, and we do not disagree on that, but he still has not answered my question. Does he think British Steel should remain foreign-owned—yes or no?

The only way we are going to have a sustainable steelmaking industry in this country, and the same applies to the manufacturing sector and our defence supply chain, is lower energy costs. That is the only sustainable way.

Yes or no?

We have a plan for sustainable steelmaking. The Government do not have a plan for sustainable steelmaking. Ministers themselves have admitted that the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe will close. They are reverting to a plan that already exists.

The Bill is an indictment of this Government’s modus operandi—a spray and pray Government who write blank cheques from the taxpayer and call that a strategy. We are doomed to relearn the hard lessons of the 1970s: if it moves, tax the hell out of it; when it stops moving, subsidise it. It was socialist idol Tony Benn who wanted to nationalise everything that moved, and one result that the Government may care to look at was the state-owned Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering company, which simultaneously made car radiators and orange juice. When the Government last ran British Steel in the late 1970s, the company’s losses hit £1.3 billion a year. Since Labour’s botched nationalisation of just a year ago, it has already spent £500 million of taxpayers’ money—£1.3 million a day.

Where is the Government’s published, costed and scrutinised plan for what nationalised British Steel will look like in five years’ time, or even in one year’s time? I have read the Bill and there is not one. There is no provision for a proper impact assessment before the sweeping powers are used. There is no acknowledgment of the monumental decommissioning liabilities—in the billions—that will sit on the Treasury’s balance sheet. There is a sunset clause, but it can be extended indefinitely by Ministers—a sunset where the sun never sets.

The House deserves better than this. We deserve a Bill with a proper thought-through plan. The Government have turned a negotiation into a crisis, a crisis into an emergency and an emergency into this nationalisation. We know that Ministers, however well-meaning, will be unable to resist using their power to tilt the playing field in favour of steel businesses that they themselves own: no longer the referee, they will be on the pitch wearing one of the teams’ shirts. There is no better example of that than their plans on steel tariffs.

What does the shadow Minister make of tilting the balance in favour of communities in Redcar and across Teesside, when his Government sat on their hands and saw the blast furnace go to the wall? Is that his definition of sustainability—to let those businesses and communities collapse?

The hon. Member would be better addressing that question to his own Ministers, who, notwithstanding the nationalisation, acknowledged that the blast furnaces will cease—they will go dark and close on this Government’s watch. The Bill does not protect blast furnaces and he should invite the Minister, when he winds up, to talk about the future there. There was a plan to invest in British Steel in Redcar to secure those jobs, but the Government pulled the chain—

What are you talking about?

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

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

Will the shadow Minister give way?

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

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way; he is making an excellent speech. Specifically on tariffs, does he agree that the approach is illogical? Reducing quotas will decrease the supply, and increasing the tariffs will increase the cost. I listened to the Secretary of State very closely. He talked about getting domestic production here, but by the time that happens, most of the businesses will have gone to the wall. Does my hon. Friend agree that the approach is illogical?

My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point, and that point has been made by other hon. Members and across the manufacturing industry. We are at risk of losing critical parts of our defence, aerospace and automotive supply chains.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although the Bill appears to be an attempt at providing a simple solution for one industry, we need to be careful what we wish for? A huge amount of steel is used in the car industry—I do not know if Members have seen the number of Chinese cars appearing on our streets. If we have elevated and protected steel markets in the UK, at a time when we have a massive global oversupply of steel, we will not stand a chance of competing with the finished goods that use all that cheap oversupply. We will end up subsidising the car industry like we did back in the 1970s. That would have a particular impact in my constituency, where firms such as Stannah Stairlifts use steel in advanced manufacturing, and face having no choice but to consider offshoring their production.

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

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

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

Will the hon. Member give way?

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

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

I am afraid that the hon. Member ought to look again at the calendar, because I was not only not in Government but not in this House—I was getting on in business trying to help grow the British economy. When the same issue arose in Port Talbot, it was the previous Government—indeed, my right hon. Friend who is now the Leader of the Opposition—who took action and were willing to back the private sector owner to secure the future of steelmaking in Wales. That was what we did in Government.

We are talking about the issue of tariffs because it is intrinsically related to the Government and the taxpayer taking ownership of one participant in a complex industry supply chain. I know that on the Government Benches, some of the truths that we share today may not be immediately popular, but past Governments failed because they were happy to do what was popular in the moment, without looking at the long-term consequences. The truth is that we should not be nationalising British Steel, and certainly not with the Bill in this form—my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East made the point about the sweeping nature of the clauses, whatever we think about the Secretary of State’s intentions.

We have demonstrated in the past, and we will again, that there are other options, such as partnering with the private sector and negotiating a better deal. The Conservatives would fix the cause, not the symptoms; we would save steelmaking in this country not through state quick fixes, but by fixing the state itself. We would not pit industries against each other, as Labour is now doing, and we would not sit idly by for a rerun of the 1970s horror show that Labour made Britain sit through the last time around.

With a six-minute time limit, I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

I will be very quick, because I know that colleagues are keen to get in. I am going to speak against the amendment and in support of the Bill for the simple reason that a speech such as the one we have just heard from the shadow Minister may have just about cut the mustard five or six years ago, but it certainly does not work today in a world of weaponised interdependence. It does not work in a world where President Trump is back in the White House or where President Xi is prosecuting the sixth five-year plan, as he is. The critical point in this debate, which the Secretary of State made very well, is that we must have a sovereign capability to make steel. In today’s world, we cannot afford to have a critical steelmaker like British Steel in the hands of a Chinese firm; we cannot, as Ronald Reagan once said, be innocents abroad in a world that is frankly no longer innocent.

Regardless of those remarks, there are a couple of areas where I think the shadow Minister made some important points. I want to stress that although the Secretary of State is proposing some perhaps welcome statism, he must not forget the statecraft that is needed to make a success of this Bill. There are six areas I would like him to respond to very briefly, and I hope we will be able to strike a cross-party consensus around them.

First, it is important that the Secretary of State wills the means and not simply the ends. We have, as the shadow Minister said, already spent a lot of money on this. The transition to electric arc furnaces that the Secretary of State is proposing is not cheap—it is extremely expensive. I think we are hoping that a lot of that money will come from the National Wealth Fund, but he does not control the National Wealth Fund or the allocations that it makes. The National Wealth Fund has not said anything about guaranteeing money for the kinds of ends that the Secretary of State has in mind, and the Government have declined to explain what will happen if steel projects are not funded by the National Wealth Fund. We therefore need a bit more clarity about where the investment resources for the Secretary of State’s plans are going to come from.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is unlikely that the National Wealth Fund, or indeed anyone else, would wish to invest in British steelmaking while our electricity prices are so very high? Does he agree that there is no point in this Bill until we fix the electricity market in this country?

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point that I am about to come on to. My point, I suppose, is that there is a case for this Bill. I think it is actually quite important, and the powers that it confers are also important, but if we are to get value for money from it, there have to be five other components, which I will come on to now.

The second area is lower energy costs. The British industrial competitiveness scheme is welcome, but it does not come online until 2027. Steelmakers, like much of our manufacturing industry, are saying very clearly to the Business and Trade Committee that there is a widening gap between UK wholesale electricity prices and the prices of our peers in the wake of the Iran crisis. My question to the Minister is: what further targeted support will be available to energy-intensive industries before 2027? As the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) rightly points out, that is an essential component of the package.

The third area that the shadow Minister was right to highlight is the issue of tariffs. This is now an urgent issue. The Committee heard evidence this afternoon at our own roundtable about the need to refine the tariff structures that have been put in place. The key thing is that we get a better deal with the European Union, to which we export 80% of our steel. It is about to cut tariff-free quotas by 47%, double tariffs from 25% to 50%, and impose melt and pour requirements. Unless we can get a deal in place with the European Union before the end of July, I am afraid that many of the good intentions behind this Bill will be confounded.

The fourth area is procurement. We must ensure that there is a proper demand curve from the UK state for the things that British Steel makes. In the British economy, British state procurement makes up £1 in every £6. Right now, despite the excellent changes in the Procurement Act 2023, we do not have a sufficiently clear forward pipeline. That has to change, not least because when we talk to defence companies—which are, of course, patiently awaiting the defence investment plan—and defence contractors, they still tell us that the kind of steel that they need to make the things that keep this country safe are not made in this country. Ensuring that there are advanced market commitments alongside the defence equipment plan, along with the range of other big, long-term ambitions that I know the Secretary of State has, is very important.

The penultimate area I want to touch on is scrap supply. The Secretary of State has ultimately come to the conclusion—wisely, I suspect—that we should shift to electric arc furnaces, but that kind of industry model will work only if there is a healthy supply of scrap. I think that Ministers are being just a tiny bit too complacent about whether we have the plans in place to source all that scrap. I know that there is a roundtable proposed for later this month, but as part and parcel of ensuring that the steel strategy actually works, can we have, at the very least, a read-out for Parliament about what scrap supplies will be kept in our country, rather than exported?

The final point I wanted to flag is about consolidation. One of the virtues of this Bill is that it bestows on the Secretary of State the power to ensure that there is consolidation in the UK steel industry for the future needs of the economy. In particular, it should allow us to take assets that have gone to firms that are currently out of business, and to rationalise the industry in a way that makes sense. I would like to hear more about what the Secretary of State is proposing when it comes to consolidating the industry.

Ultimately, in the world that we are in, when there are so many visible hands in the global economy interfering with the free market in steel, we will have to have a stronger visible hand. That is what the Secretary of State is proposing through this Bill. There will be a lot more work to do in the Bill’s subsequent stages to satisfy the House that he has got right the statecraft package behind this measure of statism. I look forward to hearing some reassuring noises on that point when the Minister winds up.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Steelmaking is of vital strategic importance to the UK. We rely on steel for essential parts of our national infrastructure, including in defence, transport, clean energy generation, and advanced manufacturing. Steelmaking creates tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs across the country, helping to power our economy and boost our local communities.

However, for too long, our steel industry has been neglected. The last Conservative Government oversaw a string of near collapses and last-minute rescues. They scrapped the industrial strategy, which is so vital to our manufacturers, and erected new trade barriers, making it harder for our steel producers to do business with their biggest export market across the channel.

We have a duty to stand by this vital sector, especially as it navigates unprecedented challenges, including President Trump’s unfair steel tariffs, China’s anti-competitive state aid practices, and the transition to environmentally sustainable production methods. If we are going to foster a thriving steel industry, we cannot allow more producers to collapse and more jobs to be lost, and we cannot risk our last blast furnaces going cold.

The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome this legislation as a temporary, emergency and targeted step, aimed specifically at turning around British steel, before returning it to the private sector. It is in that spirit that British steel producers also support this measure. The Liberal Democrats are clear that our country needs a vibrant, privately run steel industry. In the long term, only private enterprise—not Government Ministers—can ensure that the sector powers forward. We will be closely scrutinising these measures, and indeed the Government’s broader steel strategy, to ensure that they move us in that direction. We need to move on from a patchwork of last-minute rescues to a long-term plan that will set the industry on a truly sustainable footing. Right from the get-go, we would have liked to see plans to find private co-investors who can help modernise the sites and create more jobs.

Putin’s barbaric war in Europe threatens our national security; Donald Trump’s reckless tariffs are undermining our economy; and the continuing conflict in the middle east threatens business supply chains. All those factors make the future of reliable domestic steel production more important than ever for whole swathes of our economy. That is why the Government should ensure that industries that rely on steel, such as defence, are represented and involved in decision making relating to this legislation. We need stronger action from the Government on improving trade with the EU, so that our steel exporters can benefit from easier access to their biggest market, and so that our manufacturers get easier and cheaper access to the materials they need. A new UK-EU customs union would be hugely beneficial in that respect.

Last but not least, we need more ambition on the use of UK-made steel in our domestic market. We welcome the Government’s target of boosting domestic production from 30% to 50% of UK steel demand, although there is no clear timeline for that, and we cannot help but note that the equivalent target in the EU is 75%. While we understand the difference between the two markets, we hope that the Government will keep the target under review in the light of uncertain supply chains, and will consider further incentives for the use of UK-made steel in private sector projects.

The Liberal Democrats know that nationalising steel producers is not the answer in the long term; I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government also view this as an interim rescue measure. What specific steps do Ministers plan to take to ensure that British Steel becomes investable for the private sector, should the legislation be triggered? As the Bill progresses through the House, the Liberal Democrats will be carefully scrutinising the use of secondary legislation, with the aim of maximising accountability. Many of the Bill’s measures will be implemented through secondary legislation subject to negative resolution procedures. I hope the Minister agrees that the affirmative procedure would offer more meaningful parliamentary engagement.

I urge the Government to ensure that there is proper transparency for Parliament about costs associated with the legislation. Clauses 53 and 54 set out the process for the valuation of relevant businesses and the calculation of any compensation that might be paid to previous owners. While we understand that valuations will depend on factors specific to each business, the Government should publish detailed information about the criteria taken into account, and must ensure that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise proposed valuations and compensation amounts. Have the Government considered granting powers to the Business and Trade Committee to scrutinise spending on these measures? Lastly, will the Minister update the House on whether and to what extent the Bill will affect employee pension schemes? What conversations have been had with the Pensions Regulator to that effect?

Looking at the broader state of the steel sector, from 1 July the Government’s new UK steel and trade measure will impose tariffs on imported steel. While we understand the need to bring in such protections temporarily, due to the disruption caused by US steel tariffs and cheap, subsidised Chinese exports, the measure will have a significant impact on manufacturers who depend on steel as a key business input. In Business and Trade questions this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) mentioned Dynamic Metals, a firm in her constituency that is facing about a £3 million bill to import the specialist steel grades it requires for its services. While I welcome the Government’s aim of encouraging domestic production and the purchase of steel from UK steel companies, some specific grades of steel are not domestically produced, so the Government are harming the purchasing power of UK businesses. Will the Government commit to re-examining the application of tariffs on certain grades of steel to ensure that they do not inadvertently damage domestic buyers?

The Bill’s measures are subject to a public interest test, but there are limited details about what that test will involve. Will the Government allow Parliament to scrutinise the criteria for the test, and publish a detailed report setting out why they believe they have been met? How will the Minister ensure that the aim of protecting the vital infrastructure and manufacturing sectors is balanced with sustainable energy commitments? Will he confirm that when compensation is calculated, Jingye will be financially responsible for any environmental damage caused? What consideration will be given to the affected workforce, and to ensuring that jobs and skills are protected?

The Government are right to take action to protect British steel, but nationalisation must be a temporary step, taken in order to rescue businesses before they are returned to the private sector. We are supportive of the Government’s pace and urgency of action to assist the steel industry, but we need more details on the longer-term vision. I would be grateful if the Minister gave, in his response, the reassurances that I have asked for. How will the Government ensure that the steel industry becomes investable for the private sector, following nationalisation? How will Parliament have oversight, once the powers in the Bill are triggered? How will Parliament be provided with transparency regarding the costs associated with nationalisation?

With a five-minute time limit, I call Jessica Morden.

I very much welcome the Bill, which gives the Government new powers to intervene in the steel industry when doing so is in the public interest. I do so because I, alongside many other steel MPs over many years, have relentlessly made the point that the steel industry is of the utmost strategic importance to the country’s economy and security, and that we must do all that we can to protect and cherish it. While the focus of the legislation is the future of British Steel—I very much pay tribute to the efforts and fantastic advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin)—the Bill also sends a clear signal about the Government’s commitment to the industry and workers more widely.

As Ministers know, steel is important to my constituency, both at Tata’s Llanwern works and at 7 Steel. I know that the steel Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald)—met representatives from Llanwern this week. I also pay tribute to the steel unions —in particular, Community and GMB, which I am a member of—and Reg Gutteridge, the newly elected national chair of Community union, who I know will be an excellent advocate.

I completely understand that significant funding was necessary to help keep British Steel in Scunthorpe open, but it is really important that producers and steelworkers in Wales, at sites such as Llanwern, get their share of the Government’s billions of pounds of investment through the National Wealth Fund. It is also important that Ministers urge Tata to follow through on the future investments that it has talked about previously, including in Llanwern.

I really welcome the steel strategy; it is the first time we have had one. The Conservative party had 14 years to set one up and did not. We had a revolving door of steel Ministers, and I am afraid that the Conservatives’ woeful approach continues with their reasoned amendment today. Our approach is a real road map for the future. I welcome the new import quota and tariff levels to cut the amount of foreign-made steel that comes in, and to protect us from global oversupply. However, as others have mentioned, there are concerns at downstream plants that the import quotas for galvanised steel and hollow sections allow too much leniency for highly subsidised products from non-EU countries to come into the UK market and undercut manufacturers at sites such as Llanwern. Will the Minister look at that?

Ministers will be aware of the industry’s concern about the timing and design of the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism. I am keen to hear more about that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) said, we are doing great work on procurement, and it is a big part of the steel strategy, but I am aware from 7 Steel, which has proved over and over again that it can supply high-quality products for High Speed 2, that some contracts are still being made for foreign-made steel. Will the Minister please check that and raise it with HS2? Energy is always an issue, and our underlying costs are still far greater than those of our European rivals, so I join others in asking the Minister to look further at more targeted support.

Those are a few of my asks, but I very much welcome the Bill and the Government’s clear direction of travel on steel. I will end by acknowledging the deep industry expertise and knowledge that the steel Minister brings to the job. It is recognised in our plants, and it is hugely refreshing after the last Government.

I do not support this Bill, and I believe that the reasoned amendment is the right way forward. I will set out clearly the devastating impact that the Bill is about to have, in real time, in my constituency.

We have a great local business called Amodil. It is a British family-run business that started with a couple of people in 1976 in Cleobury Mortimer, South Shropshire. I recently went to Cleobury to meet Paul, Chris, Ben and the team, as well as Rob Cooper from the British Stainless Steel Association. The business was founded by Paul Slingsby, who at 75 still works in it today. It is the UK’s largest privately owned supplier and stockholder of stainless steel long products, with more than 1,200 customers—about 20% of the UK market.

The people who run Amodil know what they are on about, and they were completely blindsided by the announcement on tariffs. They had not been told, and none of their customers or suppliers, or the people they were involved with, knew anything about it, so they came straight to me. I have written to the Minister multiple times and had one response. He needs to sit down with the largest British business in this industry and have a serious conversation.

The big issue that Amodil faces is the tariffs on the stainless steel products it brings in that cannot be made in the UK in the required quantity or type. The Government want to protect the steel industry as an industry of vital strategic importance—I get that—and they want to protect jobs, but for the almost 1,000 jobs they will save, many thousands more will be lost, and I will say exactly where.

The UK cannot meet domestic market demand, and a huge gap will be created. Businesses such as Amodil will be forced to import, and tariffs will drive up costs by 50%. There is not the cash across the industry to absorb those extra costs without mass redundancies. The costs will be passed on, meaning that manufacturers’ costs will go up. What will happen then? The customer will buy the finished product from manufacturers overseas at a lower price, and those products are not subject to tariffs. That does not level the playing field for us.

The UK does not produce enough stainless steel of the right type or quality to meet demand. Amodil currently has 5,000 tonnes of stainless steel in stock, 2,000 tonnes of which cannot be, and is not, made in the UK. It could take up to 15 years to get some of the skills right. Large-diameter bars of a certain grade are not made in the UK and those bars are vital to key industries, such as aerospace, defence, pharmaceuticals, oil, automative, general engineering and many more. If the tariffs are put on these businesses—Amodil is the largest British business in the field in the UK and there are many others—they will be priced out of the industry. I really hope the Secretary of State can see the importance of this matter.

I will save the hon. Gentleman from driving home the point even more, because I understand the passion with which he speaks. With regard to Amodil, I will look into that company personally. The intention with the measures that I have brought in is to protect domestic production and the possibility of domestic production. It is not to prevent goods that we do not make here, and do not intend to have the capacity to make here, from suffering. If there is a specific issue, I will look into that, because I do not want negative impacts downstream when we do not have the capacity to produce here. The Trade Minister said earlier today that he would look into that as well. We, as a team, will look into these issues.

I thank the Secretary of State for saying that. I will follow up personally with him and with Amodil to see if we can talk about a way forward. I said to Amodil, “I believe that this is an unintended consequence of what the Government are trying to do, and once I point this out clearly, there will be a way forward to look at it.” The long and the short of it— I will put my speech to one side—is that there is a certain size of rod that only the UK can make. I watched it at Amodil’s facility a few weeks ago. When it gets past that size, it is not made in this country, but it is needed by so many of those critical industries.

Looking at steel as a whole, this matter is just one part of the stainless steel industry. If the Secretary of State, or one of the Ministers, will sit with me and the team at Amodil, they will be able to see, within a matter of minutes, where the gap is and how to plug it. It is along the blanket grading for all the bars. I request a pause for, say, just six months—or if we can talk with Amodil in a matter of days—so we can sit down and look at this, because there is a massive knock-on impact that will seriously hurt the stainless steel industry, and one of the largest employers in my constituency will be massively hurt too.

I am setting a three-minute time limit, which will allow most Members to get in, but not all.

I warmly welcome the Bill and the action that the Government are taking to protect Britain’s steel industry. I congratulate the Minister for Industry on his sterling work to bring this legislation before the House. Steel manufacturing is a strategic national asset; it underpins our infrastructure, transport system, energy, security, defence capability and industrial future. It is too important to be left entirely to the private sector.

For many of us who represent industrial communities, this debate is deeply personal. On Teesside, iron and steel built towns, livelihoods and identities from the early 19th century onwards. Generations of skilled workers helped forge modern Britain with Teesside steel, and as Chris Rea said:

“The ships and bridges they were all delivered

From Sydney harbour to the Cisco bay”.

Over the decades, however, those industries were systematically weakened. The deindustrialisation of the 1980s and 1990s hollowed out communities across the north and across Britain. Then, in 2015, the Conservative Government allowed the Redcar steelworks to close, with devastating consequences for 3,000 workers, families and a further 6,000 in the wider Teesside economy. Whereas with ILVA’s Taranto plant the Italians intervened to save that, and the French did the same for Florange, the previous UK Government sat on their hands. The truth is that a different choice could have been made in Redcar, just as a different choice is being made now. The Government could have intervened back then to preserve strategy industrial capability.

The Bill signals something important: a Government once again willing to play an active role in shaping industry and growing the economy, and doing so pragmatically. It will create a framework for the state to step in when markets fail to protect industries of strategic national importance. It will allow intervention, including public ownership where necessary, when the loss of industrial capacity would damage the national interest. It is common sense: people understand that there are sectors in which the public interest must come before narrow private gain. We have already seen this Government adopt new models of public intervention elsewhere.

We need a serious strategy for reindustrialisation and growth. That means backing British business through a strong public procurement strategy and delivering a long-term pipeline of orders. If public money is funding railways, schools, hospitals and so on, then wherever possible the steel for those projects should be made here, in Britain, by British workers.

I start this contribution on a positive note for the steel industry. Last week I visited Kiernan Steel’s fabrication workshop in Llandrindod, Wales. Kiernan Steel is a tremendously successful Irish company that has brought much-needed jobs to Radnorshire, and its success shows how the rural economy can prosper if our businesses are encouraged and enabled to locate there. One thing there is no shortage of in mid-Wales is land, and if we make that land available to businesses that need it, they will create the jobs that our region and economy need.

The steel industry is critical to our wider economy—it is virtually impossible to build anything without steel. However, the steel industry requires a skilled workforce. I was encouraged by some of the Secretary of State’s comments about the skills shortages, because we have serious skills shortages. There are thousands of vacancies for welders alone, and their pay is shooting up as a result. Skills shortages throughout the steel industry are pushing up the price of building anything, particularly infrastructure. That is why the health of our steel industry matters. If we do not look after it, the costs for projects such as HS2 and the cost of delivering all the housing we need will continue to mount.

I was interested in the hon. Gentleman’s comment about the shortage of welders. Does he agree that the Government’s plan for construction colleges of excellence, including the one in Bury St Edmunds, will be crucial for the provision of welders?

There are at least 6,000 vacancies for welders, so we absolutely need a lot more of them.

The skills shortages present opportunities to get future generations into well-paid and secure trades. Artificial intelligence cannot do welding yet, because it does not have any arms—yet. Our education system is not producing the skills that our economy needs, and our economy is suffering from that failure. Steel is strategic. It is part of our sovereign capability and part of British power. That is why steel matters.

As has been mentioned, the steel industry is affected by the geopolitical tensions that are so rampant across the world. Our steel industry has been hammered by the Chinese, who have flooded the international market with cheap Chinese steel and have run one of our biggest companies into the ground. China has wiped out our steel industry intentionally, yet today the Conservatives seem to be saying that they do not think the Government should do anything about it. Just yesterday they were complaining about our lack of defence readiness. Well, what do they think tanks and ships are made from?

Today, this Government ask Parliament to move heaven and earth to save steel in Scunthorpe. It is right to act—of course the Government should have the proposed powers—but people in Wales are asking one simple question today: where was this Bill in July 2024, when the blast furnaces at Port Talbot were switched off for the last time? When Welsh communities were crying out for help, Westminster shrugged its shoulders. That was despite Welsh Labour MPs and candidates, in the months prior to the general election, lining up in front of giant election posters that read, “Save our steel.” They said they had a £2.5 billion fund to spend on steel. Given that the Government have admitted to spending £1.3 million a day to keep the Scunthorpe plant going, how much of that fund is left to spend in Wales?

If protecting primary steel production is so important, why did they allow the biggest steelworks in Britain to be turned off? Welsh workers were told that nothing could be done. People in my constituency have lost their jobs because of this. When 2,800 jobs were wiped out in Port Talbot, there was no emergency Saturday sitting, no recall of Parliament, no emergency legislation and no sudden declaration that steel was a vital national—

Order. I call Melanie Onn.

I pay tribute to my northern Lincolnshire neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who is a long-time champion and campaigner for protecting and securing the future of Scunthorpe steelworks, which is essential to the fabric of the town and a critical part of its identity.

The Government are right to take the steps needed to bring British Steel back into public ownership. Having our own sovereign steelmaking capacity is crucial to ensuring the UK’s defence and infrastructure security. Jingye has failed as custodians of British Steel in Scunthorpe. It has the opportunity to do the decent thing and come to an agreement before the Government are forced to use the powers in this Bill, and we will wait to see whether it does that.

I know that the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), has a deep understanding of iron and steelmaking. I am sure he will agree that resolving the ownership issue for British Steel will allow an ambitious future for the business to be realised and a plan to be brought forward that will attract investment.

The UK management and workforce at British Steel have been working in an impossible situation while the Government have been negotiating with the current owners. I hope the current leadership will be empowered by the Government to make the necessary decisions to deliver the positive future for the business that the town deserves.

The trade unions Community, Unite and GMB have worked consistently hard to keep steelmaking in the UK. Could the Minister confirm that the action the Government are taking will enable both management and trade unions to deliver the positive future that everybody wants to see for steelmaking in the UK?

Scunthorpe is home to one of the last very large pieces of industrial land in the UK. The proper development of that land could benefit not just Scunthorpe and my constituency, but the whole of the UK. Can the Minister set out what plans he has to work with North Lincolnshire local authority and other partners to make the most of these opportunities? We do not want to see a first come, first served situation where the best users and custodians of that land are not given the opportunity to take it on. It has to be the right company, which will ensure that the proud history of manufacturing in northern Lincolnshire continues long into the future. Will the Minister confirm that that will be his approach?

It is exactly seven years since I started calling for British Steel at Scunthorpe to be taken into public ownership. The Conservatives rejected my splendid advice, and the chaos we have seen is a result of that. In opposing this Bill, they show that they do not care about the sovereign nature and importance of steelmaking, they do not care about the thousands of highly-skilled jobs, and they do not care about the communities and families around them—they have no understanding of its importance.

I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister for Industry on bringing forward this Bill—the first from the King’s Speech to be debated on Second Reading. I told the Secretary of State’s predecessor that he should show some cojones and get on with it, and I think that is what we are now seeing. Alongside this support from the Secretary of State, we now need to see the vision and the plan for the long term. I am concerned that there is an attitude of, “We’ll quietly let the blast furnaces go cold and disappear, and then replace them with electric arc furnaces.” We need a big, bold vision to renew, reline and rebuild at least one blast furnace.

Around the world, 50% of all new steelmaking capacity in the last five years has come from blast furnaces. It is the strongest, most robust primary steel. I know that the Minister of State is a great fan of direct reduced iron, and he has a point there; nevertheless, we should not expose ourselves by putting all our bets on electric arc furnaces, when we know that the price of electricity is at a crisis high. We need diversity in this, rather like when my late grandmother would look at the desserts available for Sunday lunch and say, “Grandson, have a little bit of each.” When it comes to steelmaking, let us have a little bit of each. Let us have a bit of primary steel and a little bit of electric arc furnace steel, to ensure that we always retain those skills and recognise the importance of our sovereign steelmaking capability.

I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will produce that vision and plan over the coming weeks, so that we can have confidence in those jobs and so that the communities can have confidence that steelmaking will be retained and invested in for the long term.

I represent a constituency built around steel and manufacturing that is now home to Tata Steel’s processing and distribution centre, the largest in the UK. In Wolverhampton and Willenhall, steel is our history and our identity. With the actions taken by this Government, I sincerely believe it will continue to be our future, too.

The Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill marks a serious and necessary step towards safeguarding the long-term future of the UK steel industry. It gives the Government the power to bring steel companies, including British Steel, into public ownership where it is in the public interest to do so. This is safeguarding Britain’s steel capability and capacity, which is firmly in the national interest, protecting jobs and our communities. That matters profoundly to places like mine. I am calling for British procurement as well, so that British-made steel is used to build our railways, infrastructure and wind turbines, so that national renewal runs through communities such as Wolverhampton North East, through the skills of our workers, the strength of our industries and a future based on good, secure jobs and apprenticeships.

I also sincerely believe that this decisive action would not have been taken under the previous Conservative Government. Since 2010, we have seen a litany of missed chances and, in my opinion, moral failures. That is why it is welcome that the Bill reflects the seriousness with which we should treat domestic steel production and the communities that depend on it. That certainty is being recognised by the industry. As UK Steel has said, it provides a vital reassurance for workers, customers and supply chains at a critical moment, recognising steel as a strategic national asset that is essential to economic growth, national security and resilience.

I also support the Government’s ambition to boost domestic production from 30% to 50%. However, I would ask the Minister to look at tariffs on imported steel, using evidence based on specific codes, and to engage with downstream firms that are concerned about the measures. In Wolverhampton and Willenhall, and across the Black Country, we understand what steel represents. We understand the value of secure, well-paid, skilled work. For our workers, our apprentices and our supply chains, and for the long-term strength of the United Kingdom, I support the Bill and commend it to the House.

In March, the Government released their steel strategy, which talked about taking bold steps to help to grow the industry. The bold steps that we have before us include granting powers to nationalise the industry and introducing a 50% tariff in six weeks’ time on the import of steel products that can also be made in the UK—I come back to this because it is a really important point. Protecting British Steel does sound admirable, and I completely understand it, but the decision has been made without consultation with the industry.

If the Government had consulted with the industry, I would not have had to meet with my constituent Alex Bailey last week, who felt absolute desperation about the future prospects of his business, which employs 70 people and has a £35 million turnover. He owns Dynamic Metals, one of the UK’s largest independent stockists of aerospace high-grade metals, which are specialist steels tested to high standards to be suitable for use in aircraft. The issue that he faces deals with three product types—12A, 14 and 27—but I will spare hon. Members with further details.

I would like to know more.

I will be sure to write to the Minister with more details.

First, none of this steel can realistically be made in the UK. The Government have provided a list of potential suppliers, but the majority, including British Steel, only make commercial not aerospace-grade steel, and the only company that might, Speciality Steel UK, is currently in liquidation.

Secondly, as Alex explained to me, the drafting of the legislation is such that there is no way customs will be able to differentiate between a generic steel and a specialist steel as they use the same harmonised system codes upon import. That needs to be revisited.

Thirdly, the quota has been set far too low. Product 12A is subject to a 31% reduction in the quota allowance and now a tiny quota will be introduced for products 14 and 27, where there was no quota before. All in all, to be able to meet his order book requirements, Alex has no option but to incur the tariffs. The additional burden that he will have to pick up on 1 July amounts to £3.2 million. He will be bankrupt within six months if this measure goes ahead. As we have heard, he is not alone, because hundreds of businesses are in the same position. As Alex said:

“This is a classic example of legislation that has been written with noble intentions—to save the UK steel industry—but due to a lack of consultation with industry, lack of industry knowledge by the authors and a total misunderstanding of the knock-on effects, this single piece of legislation will kill stockholding and manufacturing in the UK.”

When the Secretary of State is looking into the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), will he also meet with Dynamic Metals? Without prompt action now, the Government will run into much more significant issues down the line come 1 July.

I warmly welcome the Government’s decision to move towards the nationalisation of British Steel. It is the right decision for our economy, our industrial communities and Britain’s national security. I say that as somebody who believes in the value of enterprise, competition and a strong private sector, but there are clear cases where privatisation has failed the national interest and where Government have not only the right to intervene but the duty to do so, particularly where foundational industries are now foreign-owned. I was stunned that when the shadow Minister was asked a straight question about whether the Conservatives would prefer British steel to be in the hands of the Chinese or the British, he could not simply answer “the British”. He avoided the question. That shows a staggering disregard for our country’s national security.

Steel is not just another commodity—it is fundamental to our national sovereignty. It underpins our defence industry, infrastructure, energy sector and manufacturing base. A nation that cannot produce its own steel leaves itself vulnerable, dependent on the decisions, priorities and interests of others. We have moved into a different era, although if we listened to some of the contributions from Opposition Members, we could believe that we are still in the 1990s. Globalisation is dead and, to be honest, I welcome its death, because all it ever did was leave working-class communities such as mine behind, ripping out the heart of industrial communities like Hartlepool.

The tragedy is that in this country we still import 68% of our steel needs. We must fix that tragedy. If British taxpayer money is to be spent, then British industry must benefit. If we are building British warships, British steel should be used. If Britain is building offshore wind farms, then British steel should be used. If we are building new nuclear reactors, as we are in Hartlepool thanks to the deal that we struck last September, then British steel should be used. My biggest plea to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench is that we radically reform procurement policy in this country.

I welcome the steel tariffs being put in place and the assurances given by the Secretary of State that he will look carefully at the individual cases that have been mentioned, but we must put our country first. This Bill is critical to doing that and to protecting the working-class communities I represent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steel is to the UK what Yorkshire tea and Yorkshire puds are to God’s own county, what the hotpot is to Lancashire and what black cabs are to London. It is to the UK what the St Leger is to Doncaster and what the hood is to Haxey. It is about us. It is about what makes us and drives us. It is about pride.

British Steel is at the heart of the UK’s industrial heritage. It was the backbone of the industrial revolution, driving global infrastructure and enabling military pre-eminence. It was key to our rail, maritime, defence and major capital infrastructure. Someone said to me this week, “There is history that has been made, but, more importantly, there is history that we can still make.” We need to make it right here, right now, with British Steel.

The future of British Steel matters not only to my neighbouring area of Scunthorpe, but to communities across north Lincolnshire, South Yorkshire and beyond, including people in my own constituency, some of whom work at Scunthorpe and all of whom are deeply affected by the fortunes of a major local industry. The steelworkers at Scunthorpe are doing work that is essential to this country. It is highly skilled, technical and sometimes dangerous work. They deserve respect for what they do, and they deserve certainty about the future of the industry that they have helped to sustain. That is why the Bill before the House is so important.

While my interest is local, the issue is absolutely national. By nationalising steel, we can ensure that the UK does not become the only G7 country incapable of producing its own primary steel, and stop reliance on foreign imports. This is not about nostalgia for the past or keeping an industry going just for sentimental reasons; it is about recognising that steel is a strategic national asset.

If Britain is to build the homes, railways, energy infrastructure and defence capability that we need, Britain needs steel. If we are serious about industrial resilience, national security and economic growth, we cannot be indifferent about whether we retain the capacity to make steel here at home. The steelworks at Scunthorpe are not just another private asset on a balance sheet; they are a vital part of our industrial base. Once that capacity is lost, it is not easily rebuilt. Once those skills are gone, they are not easily recovered.

The Government are right to bring forward legislation that gives the Secretary of State the powers needed to act where the public interest requires it.

Public ownership should never be treated lightly, but nor should it be ruled out when a vital national industry is at risk. The test here is straightforward: does Britain need steel? Yes. Does Britain need the skills and capacity represented at Scunthorpe? Yes. Would it be in the national interest to allow that capacity to disappear? No. That is why intervention is justified. For the workers at Scunthorpe, for the communities in my constituency that depend on those jobs and for the future strength and resilience of our country, the Bill deserves the support of this House.

That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.

This has been an interesting debate, because it has brought out the strategic love of nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation among Government Members. With our reasoned amendment we have tried to put out a different approach. We also heard clearly from Reform that it is in favour of nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation. This Bill will satisfy neither our camp nor their camp. With this Bill, we have a chaotic, unplanned, non-strategic journey that will end up burning through taxpayers’ money at every stage. We can see that the decisions that the Government have taken since they came to power have delivered the worst of all possible worlds for this crucial industry.

Will the shadow Minister give way?

I promised Madam Deputy Speaker that, in the interests of time, I would not take any interventions. This Bill is an emergency intervention with mounting public costs that have no clear limits for the taxpayer. This legislation will certainly not put things on a secure footing.

We were told this time last year, when we were brought in on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands war, that nationalisation was not the plan. The Prime Minister went to China with the Secretary of State and failed to secure a deal for British Steel, so we have this Bill. It does not resolve any underlying issues. Instead, it just opens the door to an indefinite and infinite bill for the taxpayer, and that is not all. It has a sunset clause that, would the House believe it, can be extended indefinitely.

There are far too many unchecked powers in this Bill. It does not address, as the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee mentioned, that Britain has the highest energy prices in the developed world. We cannot have an industrial policy for steel unless there is an energy policy for industry. In addition to the Chair of the Select Committee, we had an interesting speech from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). She spoke about how we could turn this Bill into temporary, emergency legislation and about the path to returning British Steel to the private sector.

We also had powerful interventions from Opposition Members, including from my hon. Friends the Members for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti). They spoke up for the businesses in their constituencies that will be so badly affected by the inflationary 50% tariff on imported steel as of 1 June.

This afternoon is a chance for the Minister to answer some questions. Why were the Government unable to strike a deal with the Chinese owners? When exactly did the Government decide that nationalisation was the right path? Did they decide that before the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 was introduced? If so, why was the House not told that at the time? Why should the taxpayer be the one who foots this bill? How is this value for money for the taxpayer? Do we even know what the total cost to the taxpayer will be from these ongoing losses, the capital investment and the enormous liabilities? This Bill commits the taxpayer to ownership of an asset that loses hundreds of millions of pounds each year. What assessment has the Minister made of the chilling impact that the measures in this Bill will have on other inward investors into the United Kingdom, and what is his exit strategy, if he has one?

If the Government propose to nationalise a steel company on the basis that it meets the public interest test, can the Minister explain how the same asset could ever be returned to private ownership without contradicting their own public interest assessment that it is in the national interest? Or is the reality that once the threshold is crossed, the British taxpayer is locked into permanently underwriting a loss-making asset, with no timetable for it to return?

Why is there no requirement in this Bill for a proper impact or value-for-money assessment before the Secretary of State exercises the powers? Why have the Government not taken us up on our cheap power plan, which addresses one of the root causes of this sector’s difficulties? Can the Minister—I think I heard him say it from a sedentary position, but I would like to hear him say it again—urgently commit to look at the impact of the 50% steel tariffs on our steel manufacturing sector?

This House should not be required to sign a blank cheque. We cannot and will not support legislation that appears to be nationalisation in search of a rationale. I urge all colleagues to support our reasoned amendment.

As I was preparing for today’s debate, it struck me that 60 years ago this summer, this House was debating steel nationalisation and the England team went on to win the world cup. We are back here discussing steel nationalisation again, so I have high hopes for the summer.

Sometimes it is informative to learn from the past. Going back to the steel nationalisation of 1966, the Minister of Power opened the debate and said that

“there is no manufacturing industry of such basic importance to the British economy.”—[Official Report, 25 July 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1224.]

Of course, he was right then, and it is true now. However, the steel industry is so good that we have not nationalised it twice; we have nationalised it thrice, because the steel industry was also partly nationalised in 1948. The Minister of Supply said:

“Without steel the life of Britain would collapse.”—[Official Report, 15 November 1948; Vol. 458, c. 53.]

That is absolutely true, as we have heard from Members of the House today.

As the Minister for Industry, part of my mission is to increase the productive capacity of our industry. What we have seen in the steel industry, particularly during 14 years of the Tories, is productive decline. They presided over the loss of great steel plants and a reduction in the productive capacity of those steel plants. The thing is, the decline in market share—from 80% to 30%—was not inevitable. It was a choice born out of inaction and out of a lack of industrial policy.

The reason that this Bill is so important is exactly the same as the reason it was important in 1966: there has been a great technological shift in the industry. Back then, it was continuous casting; now, it is electric arc furnaces. The industry has been de-capitalised by years of under-investment, and it needs to be re-capitalised. Productivity fell off a cliff under the previous Government. It fell repeatedly following the closure of the Redcar blast furnace, and productivity must be improved. These are not the words of someone who is wedded to a socialist principle of nationalisation. They are the words of someone who has spent his life in the steel industry, who ran a business in the steel industry, and who is dedicated to improving productivity in our industry.

I heard the words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), when he opened the debate, and I was quite disappointed. He and I met earlier this week, and my colleagues sitting behind me might be surprised to learn that he was thoughtful and probing in the questions that he asked me. He made some really interesting points, and we had a good discussion. I thought about his points afterwards, and I found it really interesting that he had thought about the things that we will have to bear in mind when we pass this legislation. But what has he done? He has fallen into the Conservatives’ usual trap of presenting this as an ideological debate, instead of a debate about the function of an industry that is vital to this country. That is how they have prosecuted this debate.

I learned something when I was working in the industry. Two years ago, I was running a business in the steel industry. Twenty years ago, I was working at the Scunthorpe steelworks. More than 30 years ago—the House will not believe it—I left school and got a job in the steel industry. There were a lot of changes over that time. Sometimes I stayed in the same job, but the company and the badge on my hard hat changed. When it changed from British Steel to Corus, that was a big blow to how people felt about it, but I will tell the House one thing that I recognised: ownership matters, and it makes a difference. Strategy matters, and it matters where the head office of a business is. People care about the area where they work, and those things are important. The workers care, communities care and we care, but the Conservatives do not care—that is quite clear to me.

I will be very brief. I thank the Minister for his remarks. One ideological difference he has not mentioned once is the huge gulf between those on our side and his party on energy, and the Government are not going to have a sustainable steel industry due to energy.

Yes, the hon. Member is right. There is a gulf there: the Conservatives were in favour of some of the highest industrial energy prices in the world. We have delivered an increase in the supercharger benefit from 60% to 90% and introduced the British industrial competitiveness scheme. Through our investments in chemicals, ceramics and, of course, steel, we are supporting British industry with its operating costs on energy and its capital costs to improve its productivity as well.

In steel communities, they are proud people. They are people who can stand on their own two feet, and they want to; they do not want subsidies. They have pride and they have dignity in their work, and when I went to the Corby steelworks recently, I saw the sacrifice of individuals and communities with their hard and dangerous labour.

The Minister knows the sacrifices that have been made by my constituents at Dalzell plate mill in Motherwell. Will he confirm that this plate mill remains at the heart of the UK steel strategy, and that the Bill we have debated today provides a potential safety net for the future of Dalzell?

While the Government are minded to nationalise British Steel, we do not have any other nationalisations in mind. However, we do recognise the importance of the Dalzell plate mill, and I am concerned to ensure that it gets back up and running, and delivers its steel ship plate orders. I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she has been doing in championing that.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball)—she is sitting behind me—who has supported me throughout the preparation of this Bill, but cannot speak because of her position in the House. Likewise, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who is also supporting the passage of this Bill, but again cannot speak because of his position. I also thank the Chief Whip, who of course did so much work in advance of this Bill coming forward.

Let me give at least one or two minutes to the amendment. Fundamentally, there is a contradiction in the Opposition’s position in that, if we do not pass this Bill, British Steel is trapped in the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act. The Conservatives supported that legislation, so they do not want to allow British Steel to break out of that. However, I would point out to Conservative Members—and certainly those who feel that the Bill gives too many powers to the Secretary of State—that this Bill has been modelled on the Banking Act. At the time the Banking Act was being passed, a fellow sitting on the Opposition Front Bench called George Osborne—I understand he is popular in Tory circles—said, “I will do everything I can to help this Bill on to the statute book.” I think what we are hearing is that that is good enough for the bankers, but it is not good enough for the steelworkers.

To move on, I am as concerned as the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), to get in private sector investment. We have carried out a very careful balance with this Bill to ensure that the steel industry is fully informed, understands our intentions and is supportive—and it is supportive. Just in the last couple of weeks, 7 Steel has announced a £100 million private sector investment in the steel industry in the UK, so there is no chilling effect from this. In fact, this will be a spur to, or a boost for, private sector investment.

Let me mention some of the speeches. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee mentioned a number of things, but I think he was the only person to raise scrap. We have launched a scrap working group, which will be dealing with that issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) rightly raised the importance of the Llanwern steel plant, and she mentioned import penetration in relation to rebar. My near constituency neighbours, my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), could not have been clearer about how the Tories abandoned the steel communities in Teesside and the difference that this Labour Government are making.

A number of Opposition Members mentioned tariffs. There are no tariffs in this Bill. However, as we heard from the Trade Minister at the Dispatch Box this morning and from the Secretary of State this afternoon, there is an open door for companies to come in and discuss those issues.

Finally, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I have had many exchanges about steel. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we do not agree, but we always have a good discussion. He raised the importance of DRI blast furnaces as well as electric arc furnaces, and he and I will certainly have the opportunity to discuss that much further.

I think it is quite clear that the British Government are not and should not be neutral when it comes to British business, and we are on the side of business. We are unashamedly on the side of British business, and we are unashamedly on the side of the steel industry and steel communities. That is the difference between us and the Opposition, and I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.