Chris McDonald MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  The supply chain is incredibly important. My hon. Friend is right about the jobs and the economic value in the supply chain; my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) also referenced the supply chain, and particularly how its needs relate to the measures in the Bill. A number of the proposed amendments to the Bill would ultimately slow down the ability of the Secretary of State to make decisions—that point was also made by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness. If the Secretary of State cannot act swiftly, there is a risk of greater uncertainty among employees and commercial partners in the supply chain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor rightly said. That can have real-world consequences for businesses that rely on trade finance or other forms of working capital support, as a lack of confidence can rapidly turn into business closures. While some of those amendments are well-meaning—I am speaking particularly about amendments 2, 3, 18 and 19—they would fundamentally interfere with the speed and operational ability of the Secretary of State under the legislation and reduce legal certainty.

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The steel sector is vital for our national security and our infrastructure and construction industries throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. He speaks very well about that. Nationalisation or national ownership is not an objective in and of itself; it is simply a pragmatic tool of industrial strategy that can be deployed with care in order to achieve legitimate aims of Government. If we think about some of the nationalisations of the past, it may be that some of those were driven by the pragmatic use of industrial strategy, and it may be that some were driven by ideology. In general, the way that the nationalisation of a business works is that the Government intervene when a business is in distress or is no longer viable but is important. Those businesses are returned to the private sector only once they are successful. Contrary to the narrative that is often peddled about public ownership, the purpose of public ownership is to pick up businesses when there is a market failure or where a private sector operator is unable to continue. We have seen that in other instances, such as in the railway industry. I see nationalisation simply as a useful and pragmatic tool of industrial strategy.

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

  More

  I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that question, because it was mentioned by a number of Members during the debate. To go back to the point about having a business environment that creates a profitable and investable steel industry, energy is clearly part of that. Some of the changes that the Government have already made—increasing the rebate on the supercharger from 60% to 90%, or the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will support some of the downstream industry—will be particularly helpful in supporting not only the steel industry but other parts of heavy industry between now and 2030, which is when the Government’s clean power mission will come fully online. We anticipate that at that point, we will have not only clean energy, but secure and lower-cost energy. If we consider the timescale of some of the investments in steel companies that we are talking about—not only multiple-year investments in order to commission, but multiple-decade investments beyond that—we can see that we have a pathway on energy that will enable us to get from now to 2030 and beyond. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who is not currently in his place, was concerned about this issue as well. He was also concerned that the UK has the highest energy prices in Europe, but we do not currently, and it is certainly our plan to ensure that our energy prices for industry are competitive with Europe in future. Returning to the amendments that have been tabled, there was quite a lot of discussion about the sunset clause in the Bill. There were a number of objections to it, but the case for its continuation was made extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). As it stands today, the Government have no intention of extending the sunset period, but we recognise that we are living through particularly volatile times. There is geopolitical and economic uncertainty, which is likely to have a bearing on the steel sector in ways that it is difficult for us to see at the moment. As such, our view is that it is simply pragmatic to include this level of flexibility in the Bill, and of course, regulations made under that clause would be subject to the affirmative procedure. It is important that I address some of the concerns of the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies), who spoke with great passion and commitment about the importance of the steel industry throughout the whole of Wales. There is often considerable discussion of Port Talbot in this House, but as she rightly set out, there are also steelworks in Llanwern, Cardiff, Newport, Trostre and Shotton—I hope I have remembered all of them—that deserve recognition and investment. I could not disagree more, however, that this Government have treated the Welsh steel industry unfairly, or not in an equitable way, compared with the steel industry elsewhere in the UK. The steel industry in Wales is the only part of the industry that has a ringfenced fund—£500 million for Port Talbot. The hon. Lady said that that has been spent with no benefit to the local community, but I frankly cannot agree with that. That £500 million has enabled Port Talbot to invest an additional £500 million in a transformation of that steelworks that will secure steel production at that site and the future of the south Wales steel industry for decades to come. It is a significant investment in the local community. I know that the hon. Lady, like me, would have preferred for that transition in south Wales to have happened without the hard stop between the closure of the blast furnaces and the restart of the electric arc furnace, and I support Tata Steel’s view on the installation of its electric arc furnace. However, the decision to close was taken before the general election, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—the former Secretary of State, who is now Chief Whip—was able to intervene at that point and get a much better deal for the workers at Port Talbot and the community there than the previous Government did. I share the hon. Lady’s frustration and concern, but we need to be clear about where the indifference to the blast furnace closures in Port Talbot was. It was not with this Government; it was with the then Conservative Government.

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

  More

  Perhaps I can even give a slightly fuller answer than that. The particular issue with that previous nationalisation by the then Secretary of State was that it was effected merely to create a change of ownership, without actually improving the quality of the business or attracting additional investment into the business at the time. It is important to take this Bill in the full context of our steel trade measures and our steel strategy, which lays out a forward plan for the steel industry. Nationalisation is one of the tools that we can use. The Government have been clear in our steel strategy that we see a transition to electric arc furnaces over time—there are good reasons for that, not least because they are the most productive and efficient technology available and are reliable and tried and tested—but our intervention in the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 and our ongoing support of the British Steel business has been to ensure that we have blast furnace-produced primary steel available as part of that transition. The furnaces in Scunthorpe are the only two working blast furnaces in the UK, and they are currently our only source of primary steel. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) also raised reports in the press about delays to the project in south Wales. Delays on such a large project are not unusual, but the specific issue in that case was around the groundworks—I would certainly be happy to expand on that more if it becomes part of the debate. I am, of course, in close contact with Tata Steel about that. In my experience of such projects, it is always difficult to understand what the duration of the project will be until it gets out of the ground, and ultimately there are issues with the groundworks there. Let me move on to address amendment 21 and the issues raised by the shadow Minister. In terms of its structure, the Bill is very much modelled on the Banking Act 2009, which received incredibly broad support. The clauses in part 1 are vital to the operation of the Bill, and I urge the Committee to reject attempts to remove them. While I understand the consideration that has gone into the preparation of the amendments, narrowing the scope of the definition of a steel undertaking would, in the Government’s view, introduce ambiguity rather than clarity. In practice, there are unlikely to be many undertakings operating at scale in both steelmaking and an unrelated business practice; if there were, the Government would look to exercise powers in a way that focused on what was necessary to operate the steelmaking business. The drafting of the Bill follows on from the text of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act. The Government are therefore of the view that amendment 21 is not necessary.

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

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), for her incredibly generous remarks at the start of the debate. I think we all try our best here with whatever expertise we have; of course, I recognise her expertise in finance, and will aim to address some of the serious issues she raised. At the heart of the Bill and this debate is the future of our steel industry. The difference in opinion between the Government and the Opposition over the use of nationalisation as a tool of industrial strategy may be irreconcilable, but it is a useful tool—although not one to be used lightly. It is important that it is used in situations of market failure or some other private sector issue, which is certainly the case today. It was also the case when the previous Conservative Government briefly nationalised one of our steel companies, before that led to a failed private sector ownership.

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

  More

  There is so much so say, and so little time until the rise of the House. Members who are standing may wish to take a seat, because we might be here for a little while.

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

  More

  I am really glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that question—I know he has great experience in the property industry, and certainly with construction projects. As I mentioned earlier in the debate and as he will know very well, in any construction project you only really have certainty on the timeline when you have got out of the ground, and this project is still very much in the ground. The hon. Gentleman’s question gives me the opportunity to clear up some issues. I know that the delay as reported by Tata Steel—this is Tata Steel’s project, not the Government’s—related to an electrical connection, and specifically the soil condition as it relates to building a substation. At the outset, quite rightly, assumptions were made about the soil condition based on engineering assessments. Right hon. and hon. Members must be aware, though, that there have been steelmaking activities on that site in Port Talbot for well over 100 years. Not all of those operations had been fully documented, and the ground conditions were considerably worse than had been anticipated. That is now being dealt with, and as soon as the project gets out of the ground, we will have great certainty about when the electric arc furnace can turn on. Until that happens, as a project manager, I would hesitate to give a cast-iron guarantee, because you need to get out of the ground first. What I am looking forward to, though, is the delivery of the electric arc furnace in Port Talbot, because that is the point when the project will feel real—when the workforce will be able to see the furnace itself. I have been around the shop and seen the space that has been created for the installation of the furnace, but once it arrives on the dock of Port Talbot, we will all feel a greater degree of certainty about that. That will be a big boost to the workforce when it does happen. I am absolutely confident that it will happen, but to say when—to pin it down to an individual week or month—is more difficult. There was one more point I wanted to make about the contribution of the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin. She essentially called for public ownership of Port Talbot, and I am really sorry, but that is another point on which we disagree. The Government’s view is that where a steel undertaking is running adequately under private ownership, that ultimately should be allowed to continue, because the Government believe in private involvement in the steel sector. It goes back to the point about investment that I think the shadow Minister made earlier. She described her concern about a potential chilling effect on investment.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Cost of Energy: Support for Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  In the specific case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, if the company is operating a ferrous foundry, that will be part of the British industrial competitiveness scheme. If it is a non-ferrous foundry, he may wish to share further details with me, because I have had representations on both copper and aluminium foundries, which I am looking at very carefully.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Cost of Energy: Support for Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and all the other MPs from the Stoke and Staffordshire area for their work in championing the ceramics industry. First, let me say how sad I was to hear the news about Denby, as that company proceeds into administration. The Government are providing support to the workforce. On the point he raised, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s support we are providing £120 million to enable ceramics companies to invest in lower carbon production—essentially, electrical furnaces—so that they can decarbonise and reduce their operating costs. I will be working closely with ceramics MPs on the implementation.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Cost of Energy: Support for Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  We are concerned about the ability of businesses to connect to the grid, both to expand and to invest in new production facilities. Part of the work we did on reordering the grid queue was to help with that, but my colleague the Minister for Energy has commissioned an Ofgem end-to-end review so that we can bear down on the cost of grid connections.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Cost of Energy: Support for Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Supporting businesses with the cost of energy is a priority for the Government. We have expanded support through the British industrial competitiveness scheme and increased discounts on electricity network charges, and we stand ready to act if market conditions worsen due to the middle east crisis.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Cost of Energy: Support for Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his letter on the Lea Valley growers. I have had discussions as a result of his prompting with Ministers in other Departments, not only about the Lea Valley growers, but about the horticulture sector more generally. I will update him on that in response to his letter. I thank him for saying that my answers so far have been acceptable, and hopefully that one is too.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As I mentioned in answer to an earlier question, we are concerned about the role of third-party intermediaries and the proper functioning of the market, and, subject to finding parliamentary time, we intend to bring forward the opportunity for Ofgem to act as a regulator in that regard. The hon. Gentleman’s question clearly identifies why it is so important that we return to energy stability in the UK through our own home-grown clean energy.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Clean Energy Transition: Supporting People in Work · Hansard source

  More

  Clearly, on a personal level, I say to the hon. Member’s constituent that I fully understand the position she is in, having lived through such transitions myself. But the difference with this Government is that we are taking care to ensure that communities are supported—1.1 million jobs now in net zero, £105 billion of gross value added and £90 billion invested in clean energy industries since this Government came to power. We are building the British industry of the future and attracting investment to do that. We are creating the jobs of the future, while the Conservatives sat and oversaw a decline.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Clean Energy Transition: Supporting People in Work · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady raises an important point about managing the transition, and that is certainly what this Government are doing. I just want to challenge the point about the number of jobs being created by the number being lost. I know that the Opposition are always keen to quote the research from Robert Gordon University, but it does point to more jobs being created than lost. Actually, the recent report from the Confederation of British Industry now says that 1.1 million jobs in our economy are now dependent on net zero. But clearly, we do need to support the transition—it will not happen on its own. That is why, through our North sea transition funding and the opportunities through our clean energy technical colleges, we are providing that opportunity for people.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Clean Energy Transition: Supporting People in Work · Hansard source

  More

  I have to say that caring for the transition of our oil and gas workers is not something on which the Opposition have a monopoly, because only the Government have taken any action. The previous party when in government oversaw a decline in the North sea and did nothing to support a transition. This Government are supporting the transition in the North sea. Through our tiebacks policy, we are ensuring that we can make the best use of the available resources, but by continuing to invest in our cheapest form of energy and by ensuring that the supply chains are here and that the skills remain here, we will create those opportunities for people to work in those areas of the UK.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Clean Energy Transition: Supporting People in Work · Hansard source

  More

  I think we have found something on which we can agree, which is that we need to invest in renewables further and faster. I look forward to those on the Opposition Front Bench supporting our clean power 2030 plan.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Clean Energy Transition: Supporting People in Work · Hansard source

  More

  Clean energy is a huge economic opportunity for every corner of the country. Our clean energy jobs plan highlighted 860,000 high-quality jobs across the whole of our nation by 2030—jobs that young people will not need to leave their home town for.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Clean Energy Transition: Supporting People in Work · Hansard source

  More

  The Government and I recognise the importance of the food and drink sector. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the sector is not included in the British industrial competitiveness scheme, but our boiler upgrade scheme does apply to these industries. One thing that I am doing is looking at the role of third-party intermediaries. The Department intends to provide a regulatory role for Ofgem, and subject to parliamentary time, we should be bringing forward measures that will benefit the food and drink industry.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Clean Energy Transition: Supporting People in Work · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to point out the vulnerability to oil price shocks—Wales has been identified as a particularly vulnerable area. Like me, he has paid close attention to the report by the former Member for Darlington, Alan Milburn, on the need to provide opportunities for young people; in fact, I believe he has invited Alan Milburn to a meeting of his all-party parliamentary group later this week. The clean energy industry is one of the industries that will provide good-quality jobs, and in the Department we are using grants and procurement to ensure that we have strong trade union engagement.

• 21 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right: £200 million is available for such projects. The initial £14.5 million of funding that was announced will help businesses to test the feasibility of their project ideas in order to secure long-term funding from the National Wealth Fund.

• 21 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the potential in Cornwall, which is a unique and distinctive part of the country. It powered our industrial past and it will power our industrial future. I am happy to meet her and colleagues to talk more about the opportunities in Cornwall.

• 21 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend knows that I am a strong advocate of steel in construction, but she is right: there has been a missed opportunity on timber, particularly as many of our hardwood forests are coming to maturity, which means we will have a real surplus of hardwood in the UK. Something we will suffer from, though, is downstream processing of timber, so we need to look at how we can encourage more investment in the sawmills and downstream processing industry.

• 21 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises an important point about support for small businesses. It is important that their cash flow is protected and that they are paid on time—hopefully my hon. Friend will have noticed the announcement of the Commercial Payments Bill in the King’s Speech, which will give us the strongest legal framework in the G7.

• 21 May 2026 · Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend knows that when he talks about reindustrialisation and improving the manufacturing base of this economy he finds a very sympathetic ear in me. Certainly, we have all seen over the course of the past few years, through multiple crises, how the resilience of global supply chains has been reduced. Increasing the share of our economy that is dedicated to manufacturing will serve the ecological aims that he has mentioned, improve our national resilience and provide good, well-paid and high-productivity manufacturing jobs in our industrial heartlands across the whole of the country.