Chris McDonald MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Jun 2026 · Private Sector Investment: Lancashire · Hansard source

  More

  I do agree with my hon. Friend. More than that, in the towns I have described and, in fact, in the places across the country where there is manufacturing, it is usually the most productive employment—the most productive economic activity. Of course that is good for the economy, but it is also good for jobs, because the most productive employers offer the higher wages, certainly higher than would be available if those factories were not there. My hon. Friend is quite right; aspects of industrial policy that can centre more manufacturing in towns will provide better employment and improve the standard of living of people who live in those areas. Boosting economies in those areas also needs to be linked to investment in infrastructure, which is why the northern growth strategy is important—it will ensure that the right transport and infrastructure is in place to attract that business investment. We are making upgrades to the west coast main line, equipping Lancashire combined county authority with £215 million of investment via the local transport grant to help councils deliver transport improvements, including bus lanes, cycleways and congestion-reducing measures for motorists. The Pride in Place programme, which has been mentioned, is providing £5.8 billion over 10 years to rejuvenate many places around the country, including six in Lancashire. We are targeting that investment in the places where it is most needed, breathing new life into high streets, parks and the public realm. Pride in Place funding is also supporting youth clubs, libraries, community grocers, cultural venues, health and wellbeing services, and other local initiatives that make a big difference to local areas, making them both better places to live and more attractive for private investment and the creation of jobs. Significant work is under way to attract greater private sector investment in Lancashire. After years of Governments under-investing in and, frankly, overlooking industrial communities such as those in the north-west, we have acted decisively to drive growth and regeneration across the county. The reforms we have set out in our industrial strategy are making it easier for Lancashire’s key industries to invest, grow, and succeed in what is a fiercely competitive global market. Our Office for Investment is working hard to bring in more private domestic and international investors to support our high-export, high-productivity firms and back the places where people live. We are ensuring that Lancashire is placed at the forefront of the Government’s growth mission, while ensuring that growth is seen and felt by local people in local communities. We are an active, interventionist Government, working to drive growth and investment in Lancashire, in the north-west and throughout the country. I am grateful for my hon Friend’s support in that effort, and I am committed to working with her and other Lancashire MPs to ensure we build on that momentum in the weeks and months to come. She said that she could wax lyrical about how wonderful Lancashire is, and indeed it is wonderful. She also said that she wanted to coax more people to Lancashire, and I am sure that with this debate, she has done just that. Question put and agreed to.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Private Sector Investment: Lancashire · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for raising Leyland Trucks. He will be aware of some of the procurement advice changes this Government have made, because we are keen to support British industry particularly in areas relating to national security. Thanks to Government support, Leyland Trucks has invested in its assembly lines and is now capable of producing 30 electric trucks per shift for sale both here in the UK and on international markets. It is also building a fully integrated zero-emission battery electric road sweeper. That is funded in part by our DRIVE35 programme, which represents the biggest investment in our car industry since the second world war. Leyland Trucks is vital to our automative sector and the Government’s industrial strategy. I could highlight some other great investments in Lancashire, including in aerospace, which we heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley in opening the debate. There are 6,000 jobs being supported at BAE Warton and Samlesbury, thanks to the Typhoon deal that the Government secured with Turkey last year and our wider Typhoon programme. Production and final assembly of each Turkish Typhoon fighter jet will take place at either Warton or Samlesbury as part of that deal. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is in Turkey as we speak, securing more trade opportunities for British industry. In energy, Lancashire is also playing a critical role in making the UK a clean energy superpower, thanks in no small part to the strength of the nuclear sector in the county. Lancashire is already home to world-leading expertise located at the Springfields and Heysham power stations and we are building on these strengths. This Government are investing in nuclear power, working with the private sector with partners such as LS Electric, to progress an energy storage project at Widow hill. This is helping to balance the grid and keep energy supply stable as more renewable power comes online. I know that there is appetite to do even more in Lancashire, especially with the RedCAT low carbon technology commercialisation accelerator. It has been raised with me by Members previously and I know it is doing good work in bringing cutting-edge low carbon products to market. I am meeting members of the East Lancashire chamber of commerce and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) soon to discuss this initiative further. Defence has of course been mentioned strongly, and we are all eagerly anticipating the publication of the defence investment plan, but in addition to the BAE sites I have mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley will be aware that Lancashire is part of the north-west cyber cluster. She mentioned that specifically in her requests for further information and I undertake to write back to her in relation to the six or seven points she raised in detail at the start of the debate. The Ministry of Defence has made Blackpool and the Fylde College one of just five new defence technical colleges to bring employers across the defence sector together with young people from the area to ensure they can secure roles in engineering, in nuclear and in cyber-security. I know my hon. Friend shares my enthusiasm for creating opportunities for young people in defence, in energy and of course in advanced manufacturing. In addition to this support, the Department is working with the Office for Investment and local partners to deliver the “Lancashire Growth Plan”, which I would certainly recommend Members from the area become familiar with and carry around Parliament and push under the noses of Ministers, because, as we have heard, growth does not just happen in cities, and not all the places that are classed as not urban are also not rural. That is a strong feature not only of Lancashire but many places in the north-east, including the place that I call home. These are industrial areas centred around towns and it is good to see a strong pipeline of private sector investment coming forward across Lancashire. We have GVS Filter Technology’s recent £14 million low carbon manufacturing headquarters in Lancaster; a £100-million Eden Project in Morecambe, where Vinci has been appointed as the main contractor; and the Department for Business and Trade has thrown its support behind the recent investment announced by Budweiser, the official sponsor of the FIFA world cup 2026. I do not know whether I am allowed to point that out, but there we are. I believe my hon. Friend joined my ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), who is responsible for employment rights and consumer protection, in celebrating Budweiser’s £7.8 million investment. There is another investment that I must mention. Mr Speaker is not here and is of course not able to speak on behalf of his own constituency, but Chorley is also benefiting from TVS Supply Chain Solutions, part of India’s TVS Group and a major UK employer. The group is planning to invest hundreds of millions of pounds in the UK, creating thousands more jobs, including in Chorley. I am aware that senior leaders met my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister during his recent India visit, which will help us secure nearly 7,000 new jobs from Indian investment in the UK.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Just like yesterday, this second day of debate has been incredibly considered and collaborative. I very much thank everyone for contributing, just as they did yesterday. Having listened very carefully to the debate, I think many of the proposed amendments and new clauses fall into categories to do with the good use of public money in relation to valuations and liabilities, and to the role of this Parliament in scrutiny and reporting. I say at the outset, and I think this was put quite well by my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke (Pamela Nash)—she did so in an intervention I had slightly forgotten about—that the Government are trying to strike a balance. We must strike a balance between the essential nature of government, with our public accountability and also the obvious bureaucracy, and the commercial demands of business. I think we have found the balance in the right place, and as I address some of the amendments, I hope to convince hon. Members that we have given due consideration to that. Many Members, quite understandably, have highlighted specific cases in the steel industry that they believe the Government should consider. We have heard very powerfully about the plate mill at Dalzell and we have also heard about British Steel. However, this Bill is not targeted at any particular steel company; it provides powers to the Secretary of State to act in the national interest.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metals-related industries. The Treasury is responsible for the carbon border adjustment mechanism and is consulting extremely carefully with the industry on that. I am sure that the Treasury will have heard his remarks and will take them into account. Amendments 7 to 9 relate primarily to some of the environmental liabilities. The issue also arose in yesterday’s debate, where there were concerns about liabilities—the phrase “unlimited liabilities” might have been used. However, the liabilities are not unlimited. We have a reasonably good sense of what the liabilities are. We would expect the valuer to take those liabilities into account—that is quite right—but we have extensive experience with the remediation of similar sites elsewhere in the country. The Committee has heard about the Ravenscraig site, but the Teesside site is a more recent example. The remediation of the Teesside site—the amount of public money spent on that—is well documented. The site in Scunthorpe is of a similar age, has had similar industrial activity, and is of a similar size. Ultimately, however, the Government are seeking to avoid the crystallisation of environmental liabilities by ensuring the continued operation of steel on the site. It is the responsibility of the valuer to take that into account when determining the valuation of the company. For that reason, the Government do not consider it necessary to support amendments 7 to 9. Amendments 10 and 11 propose increasing the frequency of reporting on financial assistance to every three months. Again, it is the Government’s view that the current framework is proportionate in terms of the balance between transparency and delivery. We are incredibly concerned to ensure that we do not impose unnecessary administrative burdens. Inevitably, the management of a business acquired through the Bill and the civil servants in my Department would have to deal with the reasons for the business’s acquisition. Although we of course feel that reporting, transparency and accountability to this House are important, we are trying to strike a balance. I know that amendment 20 is particularly important to the Opposition, so I will spend a bit of time on it. We are all incredibly concerned about value for money, but we have existing arrangements across Government to deal with that. It is already the case that Departments must secure value for money under the Treasury’s managing public money framework. It is also our view that the drafting of the amendment does not quite meet the requirement as described: that the National Audit Office would check the assistance prior to being approved. We think that putting this requirement in statute would unnecessarily reduce the Government’s ability to act quickly where support is needed. We have heard from many contributions today that on the presumption that the legislation will be required, the Government must be able to move quickly. We have seen the need for acting quickly before. Harking back to a previous example of a failed steel business, I recall that we had only a matter of days within which to save the Teesside business due to a shortage of coal. Of course, we all remember that it was necessary to come back to Parliament at incredibly short notice to pass the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025, again because there was a shortage of coal, with the potential for those coal shipments to be diverted. It is therefore incredibly important that the Secretary of State is able to act quickly when required. A couple of amendments have been proposed by Plaid Cymru Members—although they are not present, I think it is still responsible to address them. One amendment is about restricting the National Wealth Fund, with which I completely disagree. The National Wealth Fund is one of Government’s primary instruments for assessing potential investment opportunities and investing in industry. In fact, there is provision through the Government’s £2.5 billion steel fund for the National Wealth Fund to offer support to steel companies, as set out in the steel strategy. We intend to use whatever funding instruments are available to Government, not to restrict them.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for taking the trouble to make that intervention. A number of Members have talked about downstream steel, so although it is not precisely within the scope of this Bill—and, in fact, I do not think those impact assessments would address that point—perhaps I could address their comments. Members have mentioned several different companies. This morning, I had a very constructive discussion with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), about specific instances, but she also pressed me on the concerns of many Members across the whole House. There are concerns about the introduction of the new trade measures from 1 July. I have, with the co-operation of Members from across the House, been able to gather specific examples from a number of different companies around the country that are concerned. I am engaging with my officials and it is a matter of detail for each company. Some are finding that they will still be able to access the steels, because the measures are targeted at steels that are either currently produced or could be produced in the UK. Some have a concern because the steels that could be produced are produced primarily as speciality steels, or perhaps at Dalzell plate mill, as we have heard—certainly, the measures should incentivise some production there. Owing to the nature of the trade measures—they are grouped under eight broad categories, rather than extremely specific grade codes—some grades that are not made in the UK, such as seamless tubes, could be drawn into that. That is where quotas are important, so it is really an assessment of whether the quotas are right. Again, we have been able to provide reassurance on those instances. However, I would never claim that the Government are infallible—I am certainly not—so that is why it has been very important to collect information and take action. In fact, I can inform the hon. Gentleman that tomorrow I am co-chairing a meeting with the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), in whose area this matter strictly falls, to talk specifically to downstream businesses. I would like to acknowledge not only Members, but the Confederation of British Metalforming and the British Constructional Steelwork Association, which have worked with me so closely on this matter.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I will take two interventions.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that procurement has an important role to play here. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have welcomed recent changes in guidance by the Cabinet Office to ensure that British steel producers are well placed to win these orders, as well as in the areas of renewable energy, where the Government are awarding significant contracts, and nuclear power, where we are again endeavouring to ensure that British companies are well placed to win those contracts. I turn to amendment 22 and new clauses 4 and 12, which would impose statutory caps on compensation and financial assistance. I have already addressed compensation, and financial assistance is somewhat similar in that applying a cap on the basis of the number of employees, or indeed a fixed cap of any kind, would ultimately restrain the Government’s ability to respond effectively to circumstances as they evolve. I believe that could fundamentally undermine the purpose of the Bill, which is for the Government, with the will of Parliament, to be ready to respond to circumstances such that we are not required to fly back from wherever we are in the world at incredibly short notice, and prolong uncertainty among the workforce and suppliers. We do not want to create any legal uncertainty, uncertainty in the supply chain or commercial uncertainty. That is why it is important to have this level of flexibility. The Bill has proportionate and robust transparency and accountability mechanisms for the provision of financial assistance. For instance, clause 59 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament at 12-monthly intervals, and funding will be subject to the established framework for managing public money, including through Treasury approval processes. New clause 6 would place on the Secretary of State a requirement to put forward a proposal to Parliament about providing financial assistance if a Select Committee were to make recommendations on that. Again, that is not realistic. Given that financial support would be required immediately following a transfer, there would not be time for that level of parliamentary scrutiny. Important though scrutiny is—I certainly welcome the investigation into steel currently being carried out by the Public Accounts Committee—we have to be realistic about the point at which it is possible to apply scrutiny. New clause 7 would require impact assessments to be published before exercising the Bill’s provisions. Again, the issue is essentially about pace among other things. We believe that impact assessments are crucial to show the impact of Government intervention, and the Government are committed to operating in line with our better regulation framework requirements. We do not want to introduce any further legal uncertainty, so we reject the new clause. A number of colleagues mentioned new clause 9, so it is important to address some of the issues raised around that. Fundamentally, the new clause would not be at all helpful; I will give an example as to why. There is an assumption in the new clause that if the Government were to nationalise a business under the Bill, the best approach would be to treat it like a hot potato and immediately throw it away. We have seen the impact of that. We heard yesterday about the nationalisation—briefly—of British Steel by the previous Conservative Government: they spent £750,000, made no investment in the business and immediately sold it on to a company called Greybull Capital, whose track record was failure at Monarch airlines, failure at Comet electrical stores and failure at Rileys snooker halls. If you cannot run a snooker hall, you definitely cannot run a steel company. This is where the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I have some points of agreement: there is more than one way to bring investment into a business other than selling it to an overseas investor. We could have debt and equity finance, and the Conservative party used to be keen on mass public ownership via a listing on the London Stock Exchange. There are many different ways in which we can bring private sector investment into a business and resolve issues around ownership. Of course, it is intolerable to work in a business that is constantly up for sale—I have been in that position myself—as businesses do not perform in that position. A decision to sell a business is a decision made at a point in time, not an ongoing process. The Government therefore reject that new clause. Given that I have detained the Committee considerably over the last couple of days, I have no wish to do so any further. I hope that, having responded as fully as I can to the amendments and new clauses, the Members who tabled them might feel sufficiently reassured not to press them and therefore save the House their consideration. I fully and sincerely thank everyone for their incredible participation in the debate, for the marvellous speeches that we have heard today, and for their strong interest in the steel industry that I have worked in and which I continue to champion in this House.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the incident last Wednesday at the Port Talbot site. Pickle lines are notoriously susceptible to these sorts of incidents because of the high-temperature hydrochloric acid used to treat the steels. I would imagine that once such a blaze has taken hold, the effects can be absolutely devastating. I want to echo her commendation of the emergency services and the workforce, who are, in this situation, the first responders, protecting life and valuable industrial plants. I was incredibly relieved to hear shortly after the incident that every single member of staff was accounted for. It is a credit to Tata Steel and its management processes. I am, however, concerned about our loss of productive capacity there as a result of this incident. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, we are fortunate in having another pickle line available in Llanwern, and I understand that as of last Friday Tata Steel is looking at restarting that plant and moving the work there—perhaps it has already restarted—but the hot mill was down for a time in Port Talbot. This really emphasises where we have points of vulnerability in our industrial capacity, not only in steel but more broadly. We are determined to address those points through this Bill, our steel strategy and our wider industrial strategy. I thank her for raising that matter.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am always very happy to receive help from everywhere, but the Scottish Government could help themselves by taking a more proactive approach to nuclear, as the hon. Gentleman identified earlier. The Scottish economy could benefit from that. Let me make some progress. I want to turn to the parts of the Bill that Members have raised in the debate, and thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the shadow Minister for the amendments they have tabled. Amendment 4 was one of the amendments intended to extend reporting requirements around financial assistance and compensation under section 52. In the case of compensation, that is of course a one-off payment and so the question of regular reporting does not arise. On the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, to which the hon. Lady spoke earlier, amendment 6 is about taking into account ETS, CBAM and so on in valuations. A number of comments were made about valuations and the role of the independent valuer, which we will also touch on when we consider the new clauses on capping compensation. It is particularly important that we draw a distinction between the role of Government and that of the independent valuer here, which goes back to some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. It is a serious and rare intervention that the Government are making, and one that should happen only when there is a market failure or a company is in distress.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I was just going to address the point the right hon. Gentleman made about the business in his constituency. I am not familiar with that business, but the general approach we have taken is to ensure that the groupings of steel under the trade measures are subject to the tariffs where those steels are or can be made in the UK, accepting that some of them are not but could be made in the UK, including at operations such as Dalzell. It is not always possible to separate all those steels out based on the groupings, so that is the purpose of the quota. I am always interested to hear of specific examples. I had a meeting with a business last week for which this appeared to be a concern, but once we discussed the issue in detail we found that it was not an issue for the business, because of some of the arrangements that were in place. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to share further details about that case, I am keen to hear them.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of the London Screw Company, and also for the discussion he had with me about that very company last week. It looks to me to produce an extraordinarily high-quality range of products, and certainly better than I normally find for my DIY projects, so it is my intention to patronise that company in future—we should all have more high-quality ironmongery, I believe. In a similar vein, if my hon. Friend writes to me with further details, I will ensure that my officials look at that matter, but in the first instance we would look to see whether those steels are made or could be made in the UK. Unless there are any further questions about downstream steel producing, I will move on to address more of the shadow Minister’s comments. She talked about the public interest test in clause 2. Some of the amendments would limit the test exclusively to consideration of the three factors in clause 2, whereas amendment 23 seeks to expand them to include the prevention of closure or job losses in Wales. The inclusion of the three factors in the Bill offers some additional weight, and of course any assessment of an intervention will need to be considered against them. However, there may be a good rationale for an intervention that moved beyond that and did not sit squarely under those factors, so in our view it would be sensible not to bind the hands of the Government in that way.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises a specific point about JCB. I am reasonably familiar with its business, and I think its particular concern may be around the sourcing of plate steel. The steel trade measures—the tariffs and quotas that we announced—are designed to ensure that the UK is not subject to subsidised steel, which would damage our upstream industry, and will certainly help to support the upstream sector. Of course, we need a strong upstream sector in order to have a strong downstream sector. The issue with plate steel is that the Dalzell plate mill in Scotland, which is capable of making many of these steels, has not been operating for some time. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and JCB to discuss that in more detail.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) also wants a strong steel industry, but he has been quite clear that he does not see nationalisation as a tool for delivering that—I think that is fair. He is also concerned about the use of public money, which I think is fair as well. I shall address both of those points as I continue. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) raised those issues. This is an opportune time to mention that in her earlier comments, she asked for an update on the current status of the Speciality Steel UK business, which I know affects her constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). That business shows the power of a productive Government intervention, working carefully with industry, because the Government have underwritten the costs of the official receiver to allow a proper sale of the business. The official receiver is in exclusive discussions with a potential buyer, and there was a high level of interest in the business from the market. As we look forward to the potential sale of the business, we can see the vital role that the Government have played in recognising that steel undertakings are complex, that it can be difficult and can take time to assess them, and that they require high levels of working capital. That contrasts significantly with Governments in the past, who allowed steel companies to close simply by not allowing that process to continue.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed, Madam Chair—I was banking on 10 o’clock. I thank all Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin); the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney); and the former leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), for the extremely constructive and civil way in which this debate has been conducted. I know that that comes from a real enthusiasm among all Members in the Committee for having a successful steel industry. In fact, there were many points of agreement in the debate. In debating the amendments to the first part of the Bill, the importance of the steel industry came through extremely strongly, as did the importance and reliability of the use of public money. We all share that view across this Committee, and we also want there to be extreme care in the use of the powers in the Bill. I know that Members who moved amendments in that regard are concerned about that, and the Government are too. I will address some of those points, and I will endeavour to address some of the points raised by Members during the debate. I will start by addressing a recurring theme in the debate: what nationalisation is.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  From the Government’s perspective, there is certainly no intention to disadvantage Northern Ireland. The unique position that Northern Ireland holds is enabling it to attract additional investment above and beyond. In fact, the economic growth rate in Northern Ireland is incredibly impressive, and I look forward to seeing that when I visit in two or three weeks’ time. Having addressed the amendments, I will move on to some of the new clauses. First, I acknowledge the incredibly constructive dialogue I have had with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) in preparing for the Bill and the tabling of her amendments. New clause 2 would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult an advisory committee as part of his decision-making process. The Government agree with the sentiment—we have had wide consultation with stakeholders—but there is a practical reality and in particular a commercial consideration for the exercise of the Bill’s powers. It is therefore not possible for us to accept that new clause. New clause 3 relates to the detail of a jobs and industrial transition strategy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor asked a specific question about. I reassure Parliament that from a skills perspective, the Government will assess any impacts of a transfer on jobs, skills and local communities. In fact, that is an incredibly important part of why we would seek to intervene at all. Following an acquisition, the company’s objectives will be published as part of the shareholder framework document. Finally, I will move on to new clause 5. Again, this issue was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor, and it also comes back to where I started the discussion about the nature of a nationalisation. While the Government in this situation would own a steel undertaking, and as the main shareholder in the business would have the opportunity to set the direction and appropriate strategic objectives, it is not the Government’s aim that the steel companies would then become an extension of the civil service, as amazing as my civil servants are. Instead, steel undertakings should be run by those who are knowledgeable and skilled in the industry, as we have seen at Sheffield Forgemasters and, as we heard, at the semiconductor factory at Octric. Having covered the amendments and the new clauses, and perhaps tried the patience of the Committee to a great extent, it would be wise to conclude. I point out to hon. and right hon. Members that there is an additional day of debate on the Floor of the House on this Bill tomorrow. Rather than me standing here and talking to myself for six hours, they would be most welcome to come back then. If I have addressed their points sufficiently, perhaps some of those who have tabled amendments may see fit not to press them to Divisions, but otherwise, I feel I have addressed the points sufficiently for now.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent .

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me address that point. It is helpful for us to think about the potential options. There is agreement across the Committee that we want a successful and thriving steel industry, and the Government have made some serious financial commitments. We have committed £500 million to support the transformation of the plant in Port Talbot, which has attracted another £500 million of private sector investment. We have committed £2.5 billion through our steel strategy and an additional £400 million to support the Forgemasters operation, which is successfully under public ownership. We have to think about the potential options. Given that the Government have put that money on the table and are seeking private sector partners to work with for all our steel plants, the alternative would be the closure and the loss of those facilities. This comes down to a judgment as to whether we think the UK is capable of having a successful, profitable and investable private sector industry. It is the Government’s view that it is possible for the UK to have that, not least when we compare ourselves with similar advanced economies in Europe—we are not necessarily comparing ourselves with low-cost economies around the world—but it is a matter of ensuring that we have the right business environment to enable that to happen, and it is clearly incumbent on Government to arrange policy in that way. I think our steel strategy, in particular, and our trade measures provide that response, which is what gives us confidence that we have the resources to do that.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will take the second intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, and then I will give way to him.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member might wish to let the business know that we have committed to a 12-month review of these tariffs, which, as I said, apply to steels that are made or could be made in the UK. I am aware that Speciality Steel UK is currently not operational as it is going through an administration process. Although the sort of high-quality aerospace steels that he mentioned may not be made there, I think it is probably the most likely location where they will be made, subject to those certifications, which are held by that business. The official receiver is currently in exclusive discussions with the business and a potential owner, so it is possible that the company he refers to may see a UK supplier soon, but if he shares the details with me, I will certainly be able to give him a fuller response.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. He is right that we should welcome that 50% of UK steel will be made in Wales. We talk about Port Talbot specifically, but 7 Steel’s plant has operated incredibly well for so long, making the rebar steels that are essential for our construction industry in the United Kingdom, as well as in Ireland, which 7 Steel supplies, too. Long may that continue. I am sure that the investment will help with that. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) raised a number of concerns, such as the operation of the Bill, its powers, public money and so on. He made a comparison with the Banking Act 2009, and he is right that I have made great play about the similarity between this Bill and that Act. I reassure Members that, having passed the Banking Act to great acclaim, this Bill is following its path, and we made a positive decision to do that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the requirement in the Banking Act for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I believe, to consult with the Prudential Regulatory Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England, and how a consultation requirement is not in the Bill. He is right to point that out, but these are different industries. The banking industry is highly regulated, and there are statutory bodies that require consultation. There is no opportunity to replicate that in the steel sector, because there are no such statutory bodies. He rightly made the point that it is important that we engage on the detail in Committee, and I thank him for raising that point and giving me the opportunity to respond.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am aware of that issue as well, and if the right hon. Gentleman would like to include all those issues in the letter, I will be happy to provide him with a response.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will take an intervention from the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness. Given that he was referenced, it would be helpful to give him the right to reply.