Alan Strickland

“Ministers will speak for themselves, but I think they are seeking the flexibility to act in the national interest and to do so appropriately. My concern is more with some of the clauses that add lots of prerequisites to what needs to happen before Ministers can act. My view is that in the limited, and hopefully rare, circumstances where Ministers do feel the need to exercise these significant powers, they need to be able to act quickly, and that is what we are discussing today. Several of the amendments relate to concerns around value for money, which of course is an incredibly important consideration. It is important for all of us to remember that one of the key reasons we are here today is precisely because Ministers have said that they want to do more to ensure value for money for taxpayers delivered in the Government’s potential intervention in British Steel Scunthorpe. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry was clear in May that the Government intended to bring this legislation forward precisely because Ministers were unable to agree suitable terms with the current owner of British Steel that represented a “responsible use of public money,” so value for money has been a key driver of ministerial action on this matter and the reason we are debating it in the Chamber today. I turn to new clause 5, which the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) was just describing. I am sort of slightly astonished that Reform, a party with no plan for steel, has put an amendment demanding a plan for steel. I am pleased to tell Reform Members who are here that we already have one. The Labour Government, as the Minister mentioned, published the UK steel strategy in March. It clearly addresses a number of the important points that the hon. Member rightly mentioned earlier, including specifically the need for the public sector to buy more steel. A year ago in June 2025, the Cabinet Office published guidance—procurement policy note 22—that required public bodies nationally and locally, and their executive agencies, to ensure that UK-produced steel is routinely considered in public procurement and that this is done at an early stage in the process, so the mention of public procurement around steel in that amendment is redundant. Ministers have already issued clear guidance on that some time ago. The second problem with Reform’s new clause 5 is that it misses the point of the Bill. This Bill is not about a national strategy on steel—one was published, as I have just mentioned. The proposed law before us deals with specific questions of ownership and with Government intervention in specific steel undertakings. My concern is that subsection (2) risks fundamentally undermining any steel company that might be acquired by the Government. Why? Because by requesting the publication of internal strategies, investment plans and the various things mentioned in the new clause, it risks asking the Government to release into the public domain highly sensitive commercial information about that new public corporation—information that I know, having spoken to people in the sector, other commercial steel operators would be unlikely to publish. I have a broader point about not only the new clause but some of the wider discussion of the Bill. At the heart of new clause 5 sits a slight misunderstanding of what nationalisation means. To give a local example, I was proud to work with the Defence Secretary to secure the nationalisation—or the “strategic acquisition”, as the civil service preferred to call it—of a semiconductor plant in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency. The process was designed to protect the sovereign supply of the semiconductor chips that are vital to the UK-Italy-Japan global combat air programme. There was a risk of that sovereign supply being lost from NATO soil. Octric, as the company is now called, has its own board and its own chief executive, recruited from industry, along with industry experts supporting it. It is of course supported by the Ministry of Defence, but it operates as a commercial concern—as a company in which the sole shareholder is the British Government. That is what we are talking about. Let us be clear: we are not talking about the Government acquiring a steel company then getting involved in the day-to-day running and making all sorts of detailed day-to-day demands. We are discussing the provision of powers to allow the strategic acquisition of a key element of the steel industry, if that is required and in the public interest. I am concerned that, given the importance of steel to defence and to our critical national infrastructure, forcing the publication of the details set out in new clause 5 could compromise our national security, given that we are talking about using steel for such vital purposes. I say respectfully to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness that, of course, Reform’s slightly muddled position on steel strikes me as nothing new. In 2023, Reform appeared to oppose intervention in Scunthorpe; now it proudly supports it. Last year, Reform talked of reopening blast furnaces in Port Talbot; I noticed that that pledge had disappeared from its manifesto for the recent Senedd elections. The Bill deals with serious and crucial issues—not just for our national economy but, as Members have said, for many of the constituencies represented by right hon. and hon. Members present, and it deserves to be taken seriously. Before I finish, I have three issues that I would like the Minister to address, if he could, when he responds to the debate. First, we need to bring clarity to what nationalisation would mean in this context. My understanding is that were British Steel to be nationalised, it would effectively remain a private company, but its primary shareholder would be the Government, and commercial leaders with relevant sector experience would be brought in to run it. Can the Minister confirm that the best commercial minds from the steel manufacturing industry and other relevant industries would be recruited to run the company and that that is how it would function? I think of comparisons from local government. When I was a cabinet member in charge of planning, housing and regeneration, we had a number of subsidiary companies as the council, but they had operational independence. We recruited the best people from the relevant sectors and did not interfere in the day-to-day operational running of those organisations. If the Minister could give clarity on whether that is a suitable comparison to what he envisages, that would be helpful. Secondly, a number of the amendments seek clarity on transparency or accountability, on which Members rightly want reassurance. I have expressed concerns that the commercial reality of the company operating would mean that some steps just would not be appropriate, reasonable or helpful, and could slow things down. But can the Minister give some clarity on the entirely reasonable and legitimate desire of Members to understand, if British Steel is acquired, how things are going, how public money is being spent, what is being delivered, and how transparency might be brought to the House in an appropriate way? Finally, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) tabled new clause 3, on jobs and the industrial strategy transition. I will not get into the specifics of the new clause, but it flags up an important point about how Ministers will ensure that any acquisition of a plant will deliver social value, including jobs, apprenticeships, traineeships and other opportunities. I have been very pleased recently to meet the new apprentices at the semiconductor plant in my constituency that, as I mentioned, was acquired by the Ministry of Defence, and have seen for myself how that Government intervention is delivering wider value to the community. A new apprenticeship programme has been established and 35 additional people have started working there, with more being recruited and work going on to expand the business and make it work better commercially, which is exactly what we want to see. Will the Minister say more about the important issues raised by the hon. Member for Richmond Park around how jobs, skills and apprenticeships might be looked at and considered in any potential acquisition? To conclude, I support the Government’s approach to the Bill and have been happy to set out some of my thoughts on the amendments from across the Committee. Given the importance of steel, it is entirely right that the Bill seeks to move us to a more proactive position and to give Ministers more options to act in the national interest. That is important not only to provide a more secure future for the sovereign supply of steel, but to avoid the permanent loss of our country’s steel-producing capacity. A modern, dynamic, future-facing steel industry is critical to the Government’s ambitions for industry and modern industry. As we have heard from Members across the Chamber, it is also crucial and central to the ambitions of many of the communities represented in this debate. I commend the Minister, with his significant expertise on steel, for pushing this important matter forward.”