Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

I remind Members that, under the Order of the House of today, notice of amendments and new clauses to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be—[Interruption.] This is very serious. They may be accepted in person by the Clerks at the Table in the Chamber before the Bill has been read a Second time. The deadline for amendments tabled in this way is 12 noon. Any amendments tabled to the Bill will be treated as manuscript amendments, meaning that only those tabled before 12 noon and selected by the Chairman for debate at Committee stage will be distributed and published.

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

We meet in exceptional circumstances to take exceptional action in what are exceptional times. Our request to recall Parliament was not one we made lightly. I am genuinely grateful to hon. Members in all parts of the House for their co-operation, and for being here today as we seek to pass emergency legislation that is unequivocally in our national interest. I thank in particular the staff in Parliament for facilitating today’s sitting, and the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Home Secretary for their support. Indeed, we can take this action today only because of the restoration of economic stability and the dedicated resources for steel in the last Budget. I acknowledge my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and all my hon. Friends from Teesside for their advocacy and engagement on this matter, throughout, on behalf of their constituents.

As hon, Members will know, since taking office, the Government have been negotiating in good faith with British Steel’s owner, Jingye. We have worked tirelessly to find a way forward, making a generous offer of support to British Steel that included sensible, common-sense conditions to protect the workforce, protect taxpayers’ money, and create a commercially viable company for the future. Despite our offer to Jingye being substantial, it wanted much more—an excessive amount, frankly. However, we remained committed to negotiation, but over the past few days, it has become clear that the intention of Jingye was to refuse to purchase sufficient raw materials to keep the blast furnaces running. In fact, its intention was to cancel and refuse to pay for existing orders. The company would therefore have irrevocably and unilaterally closed down primary steelmaking at British Steel.

I want to make it absolutely clear that, separately from any conversation about a possible deal to co-invest in new infrastructure, the British Government offered to purchase the raw materials in a way that would have ensured no losses whatsoever for Jingye in maintaining the blast furnaces for a period of time. A counter-offer was instead made by Jingye: that we transfer hundreds of millions of pounds to it, without any conditions to prevent that money, and potentially other assets, being immediately transferred to China. Jingye also refused the condition of keeping the blast furnaces maintained and in good working order.

Even if I had agreed to those terms, I could not guarantee that further requests for money would not then be made. In that situation, with the clock being run down, doing nothing was not an option. We could not, will not and never will stand idly by while the heat seeps from the UK’s remaining blast furnaces, without any planning, due process or respect for the consequences. That is why I needed colleagues here today.

From what the Secretary of State has described, it is beginning to sound as though Jingye is trying to manoeuvre the Government into a recompensed nationalisation. Will he make it plain that if it tries to manoeuvre us into nationalisation, we will pay not more than a penny for the business?

To be clear, where there is a transfer of ownership to the state, we would always pay the fair market value for the assets. In this case, the market value is effectively zero, so I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point entirely. I would say that the intention of Jingye has not been to engineer that situation; its intention has been to keep the downstream mills, which colleagues will know are fundamental to our construction and steel industries, and supply them from China, rather than from Scunthorpe; that is the situation.

Is it now the view of the Government that primary steel production in the United Kingdom is an overriding national security issue?

As the right hon. Gentleman will know—we have had this exchange at the Dispatch Box before—I believe that the capacity for primary steel production is important. The steel strategy looks at new ways of ensuring that, and at not just protecting the past, but at what the future may bring. Direct reduced iron technology is of significant potential interest to us for the future. However, this situation—involving the last remaining blast furnaces, and the proposition put to us—is exceptional and unique, and I need all colleagues to recognise that.

The legislation ahead of us today is therefore a proportionate and necessary step. It allows us to take control of British Steel’s blast furnaces, maintaining steel production and, by extension, protecting the company’s 3,500-strong workforce. The Bill does not transfer ownership to the Government. We will have to deal with that matter at a later date. I took the decision that given the exceptional nature of a recall, it would be better to limit the powers in the Bill, which are still significant, rather than introduce more complex matters of property rights and public ownership at this time.

The Secretary of State is taking extremely extensive powers for the Government, and they apply to what he describes in the Bill as “specified assets”. As far as I can see, they are not limited to blast furnaces or assets required for making virgin steel. Does he accept that he is leaving two hands on the tiller, when it comes to the operation of all the steelmaking companies to which the Bill may apply? In other words, he is saying that the Government can direct a company in relation to specified assets, but that company can do other things of its own initiative. Does he recognise that he is creating considerable legal complexity in the operation of those companies going forward? Why is that the right approach?

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his thoughtful question. The fundamental purpose of the Bill is to allow me, as Secretary of State, and this Government to take control of this situation. The reason why this is the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill, and not a Bill specific to British Steel, is, as he will know, that the latter would be a hybrid Bill, and introducing that would be a far more complex procedure. With the clock being run down, that was not an available option.

The Bill broadly replicates the situation that would apply if the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 had been triggered, but rather than seeking to meet the threshold to trigger that Act, I am seeking parliamentary permission—the consent of this House and the other place—to take control, which I think is a better way forward. I want to make it clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to the House that I want this to be a temporary position—I do not want these powers a minute longer than is necessary—but I need the powers to rectify and save the situation.

Given that the Secretary of State has inferred that the owner, Jingye, is not and has not acted in good faith, surely the right thing to do is to seize this great opportunity now, this weekend, and nationalise British Steel?

A transfer of ownership to the state remains on the table. It may well, at this stage, given the behaviour of the company, be the likely option. However, our aspirations for British Steel remain a co-investment agreement with a private sector partner to secure a long-term transformation. The action I seek to take today is not a magic wand or a panacea. The state cannot fund the long-term transformation of British Steel, nor would it want to, but a failure to act today would prevent any more desirable outcome from even being considered, and that, again, is why we must act today.

I applaud my right hon. Friend for his decisive action in this matter. I have only had a chance to read the Bill for 10 minutes—[Interruption.] That is not a criticism; it is the natural procedure of this House. The Bill could not be laid until First Reading. The Bill talks about compensation. He has made the point that he is not planning to take over and run British Steel, which is not the desirable option, but has he done some sort of impact assessment on the potential range of costs to the taxpayer in these circumstances?

I think my hon. Friend refers to clause 7, which deals with compensation. Again, let me be clear: this is a clause that we would put in any Bill. We are not Russia, and we do not sequester assets. The language in the clause—the legal definition—is something that we would use in most standard procedures. Going back to the question from the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), the effective market value of Jingye is zero, so there is no inconsistency between those two points.

What is happening today is something that mining communities like Swadlincote, in my constituency of South Derbyshire, will be feeling deeply in their souls. It is something that they could have only dreamed of back in the 1980s, when they wanted a Government who had their backs and prioritised the national interest. Instead, they had a Conservative Government who sold them down the river. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a pivotal moment in our history, because we have a Labour Government prioritising our people and the national interest?

This is a significant moment. How a country handles economic transitions is not about nostalgia for the past—we have to embrace the future—but how we help our people, our industry and our nation get to that point is key. My hon. Friend and I come from similar places, and we have not managed these transitions particularly well in the past. We are meeting this weekend to discuss the potential loss of thousands of jobs, which is what was on the line. The fact that we do not accept that, and that we will do things differently, is a welcome change.

We will scrutinise this Bill today, but we want to do so in a constructive fashion. Given the huge damage that President Trump’s tariffs have done to the British steel industry, accelerating this crisis, does the Secretary of State agree that any Member of this House who actively campaigned for President Trump’s election and cheered him on has behaved shamefully unpatriotically and should apologise to British steelworkers?

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Member and his party for their presence today. He will not draw me on the other principal issue that we have been dealing with at the Department for Business and Trade over the last few days, but to be clear, the issues around British Steel are about more than the imposition of tariffs. The tariffs are not welcome, and I do not think there is justification for them to be put in place. I believe that it is in our interests, but also in the US’s interests, to agree a position that removes those tariffs in the interests of steelworkers.

I fully understand the nature of what the right hon. Gentleman is bringing forward. I also understand some of the requirements for speed in this case, and we can argue about whether this should have been done before. Having quickly looked through the Bill, I do not see a sunset clause. I ask about that not because I want the Government to set a particular date, but because such a clause would bring them back here to debate whether the process should be extended. It would therefore put a reasonable limit on Government activity without debate. Can he explain why there is no sunset clause in the Bill?