British Steel

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 22 April.

“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the steps the Government have taken since the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 came into force.

The Government took the decision to recall Parliament on, 12 April, so that we could take swift, significant action on British Steel. As honourable Members will be aware, that was the first time Parliament had sat on a Saturday in over 40 years. Our attendance in this place was testament to the urgency and importance of the issue at hand, which was the need to prevent the immediate closure of the blast furnaces at Scunthorpe. The action we took on 12 April and the measures we have taken since matter greatly for this country, and are of enormous importance to thousands of steel-workers and their families. I am very pleased to inform the House that this afternoon, British Steel has cancelled the redundancy consultations started by Jingye. I know that many British Steel employees will breathe a sigh of relief at that news.

It is regrettable that when this Government took office, we inherited a steel sector in crisis, and an iconic British company facing an existential threat. Since day one, we have worked tirelessly with British Steel and the trade unions to find a resolution, because blast furnace closures at Scunthorpe are an outcome that this Government were simply not willing to allow. I want to stress that this kind of state intervention is not something that we intend to replicate in other situations, or for other industries. We recognised that unprecedented action was warranted in a truly unprecedented situation.

As honourable Members will know, the legislation we introduced, which was passed that weekend, gave us the power to direct British Steel’s board and workforce, ensure they got paid, and order the raw materials to keep the blast furnaces running. It also permits the Government to do those things themselves, if the circumstances demand it. We have wasted no time in enacting those powers and taking the urgent action required to keep the blast furnaces lit at Scunthorpe. We have secured the raw materials needed to keep the blast furnaces operating, and we continue to work at pace to secure a steady pipeline of materials. Officials were on site to help British Steel within hours of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 becoming law, and we are already seeing the real-world impact of our decisive intervention.

I am delighted to say that British Steel has also confirmed today that it can keep operating both of the UK’s last remaining blast furnaces. By contrast, Jingye’s plan was to shut one of them down earlier this month. It will come as no surprise to honourable Members to hear that the company’s workforce, their families, suppliers and communities have expressed deep gratitude for the action we have taken, which has preserved steel-making at Scunthorpe and safeguarded thousands of skilled steel jobs.

Now that the immediate emergency has passed, it is right that honourable Members also ask questions about what is next. We have been clear that in order to secure the long-term future of British Steel, which has not been properly invested in for years, we will need a modernisation programme, ideally with a private sector partner. Furthermore, we will need to look beyond any individual company, and ensure a secure and thriving future for the whole steel sector. That is why we are continuing our work to publish the steel strategy this spring.

All options are on the table as we begin to address the company’s long-term sustainable future. My officials met Jingye on 16 April. It was a respectful conversation, and that dialogue will continue as we find a way forward in the national interest that safeguards steel-making and protects jobs. With that in mind, I also want to say thank you—thank you to those who sent us messages to say we did the right thing to save British Steel, thank you to everyone who offered practical support and, most importantly, thank you to the workers and managers at British Steel who have heard our call to produce the steel that we need to deliver our plan for change, to keep the Scunthorpe site and everyone working at it safe, and to do so in a way that reduces the scale of financial losses. They have shown remarkable resilience and dedication at a supremely difficult time, and have served the plant, their community and the nation. They have promised us that there are better days ahead for British Steel, and we agree. We are giving them the chance they need to write the next chapter of British Steel’s history.

We have assured this House time and again that steel has a bright future under this Government, and I restate that today. Steel is fundamental to Britain’s industrial strength and to our identity as a global power, and we will never hesitate to protect it. We have committed to update both Houses as policy develops and a longer-term strategy is formulated. I reaffirm that written updates will be forthcoming regularly. So let there be no doubt: this week is not the end. It is not the end of the work, and it is not the end of the negotiations, but, thanks to the actions we have taken, it is also not the end of British Steel. I commend this Statement to the House”.

14:37:00

My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to return to the subject of Scunthorpe and British Steel. I start by saying once again, as I said on the last occasion, that our thoughts today must be with the steel-workers, their families, the suppliers and the communities whose future hangs in the balance in what is a very difficult and challenging situation. We welcome the news that British Steel’s redundancy plans have been halted. This will be a relief to the workers and their families who have endured months of uncertainty because, when one looks at the background to this whole situation, one sees that the Government have just not had any plan at all for British Steel. As was said when we met on Saturday 12 April, during the Recess, this situation should never have been allowed to reach this point. The closure of the Stellantis plant in Luton—as long ago as 29 November last year—was a stark warning, yet still the Government failed to act in time. So, although today’s Statement brings some short-term reassurance, it is by no means a resolution. This is only the beginning. I say to the Minister that we now need urgent clarity. We need to understand how the Government plan to secure the future of the British steel industry. That includes a clear strategy to boost domestic steel production, a credible plan to attract and sustain private sector investment, and an assurance that the broad powers that the Government have taken will genuinely be temporary. Although we are told that these powers will not be held “for a minute more than is necessary”,—[Official Report, Commons, 12/4/25; col. 843.] the Government’s recent approach with delegated powers and Henry VIII clauses is precisely why this House called for a sunset clause. Parliament was just not given sufficient time to scrutinise the Bill properly, and the Government should have taken that opportunity to come back to Parliament with improved proposals that had not been rushed through. Sadly, that proposal was rejected. We now have a commitment that the Secretary of State will provide updates every four weeks, and we are going to have a debate in this House, in September or October, on the future of British steel. This is very much what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and many of us called for on the last occasion, but the House really now needs to hear a commitment from the Minister that this will be a substantive debate. On the last occasion, the Minister said: “I can confirm that my noble friend the Chief Whip will facilitate a fuller debate on the Floor of the House on the operation of what will then be the Act”.—[Official Report, 12/4/25; col. 534.] I do not know whether the Minister has had an opportunity of talking to her colleague, but we really would like some further detail, because this House must be given the opportunity to scrutinise and influence the direction of policy in a substantive debate. Can we please have that assurance? We must of course also address the cost to the taxpayer. Have the Government provided any form of estimated assessment of the public cost so far? Looking ahead, where will the ongoing costs land, especially if the government intervention continues or escalates? On that point, the Business Secretary has now said repeatedly that nationalisation is likely. Can the Minister confirm that any move towards nationalisation will not be rushed through at the last minute via emergency legislation? If it is indeed the Government’s intention to nationalise, they should make that clear today and bring forward legislation without delay. This House must be given the opportunity properly to debate and scrutinise such a significant move. What happened during the Recess is not acceptable and should not be repeated, because it was an appalling way for Ministers to treat Parliament. The Government should act in a timely way to prevent unnecessary uncertainty and strain on our steel sector workers and their families. Then to the matter of the Government’s long-promised steel strategy: we are told that this will be laid before us very soon. Can the Minister give us an idea of what it will contain? Specifically, will the Government consider, or reconsider, opening coking coal mines in the UK? On the last occasion we debated this, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, asked the Minister: “Will the Government reconsider the decision not to support the Cumbrian mine, which can produce high quality coking coal?”.—[Official Report, 12/4/25; col. 517.] There was no indication of an answer to her noble friend’s question in that debate, and we would love to hear an answer from the Minister today. I realise that there is a sulphur problem, but it is long standing and can be overcome. Can we please reconsider opening coking coal mines in the UK? It is patently absurd to reject domestic coking coal on environmental grounds, only to import it from thousands of miles away at a greater environmental and financial cost. Secondly, the Government have committed £2.5 billion in investment in steel. Will the Minister clarify for what this funding is intended? Is it going to cover running costs? If not, who will? Are we expecting the taxpayer to carry that burden as well? Finally, I have a broader question. Will the Government now reconsider elements of their environmental policy and regulatory framework that have at times actively harmed UK industry? Of course we must stay committed to our environmental obligations, but surely that must be balanced with industrial viability, energy, security and economic growth. Can the Minister confirm whether such a review is under active consideration? The British steel industry is a strategic national asset. It surely deserves better than piecemeal interventions and opaque announcements. I ask again: can we please be provided with the clarity, detail and honesty that this House, the other place and the thousands of workers and communities relying on us rightly demand now?

My Lords, when we debated the fate of British Steel on 12 April, the sense of urgency from the Government was palpable. As subsequent events played out, that sense of urgency was fully justified. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I would say it was timely legislation that Parliament moved effectively to deliver. That is why the contents of this Statement—as far as it goes—which sets out how both blast furnaces have been secured and the redundancy process has been ended, are good news. Everyone involved should be congratulated on pulling together and working so effectively to do that. However, the haste of the legislation and the need for quick action leave a lot of open questions. I will ask a few more nitty-gritty questions. First, what about Port Talbot? I cannot help thinking the Welsh will be looking eastward and wondering where they fit into this programme. Have the Government had discussions with Tata Steel? How do the Government see the whole picture of steel in the United Kingdom, and how will they set that picture out to your Lordships? Secondly, what is Jingye’s current status, in respect of British Steel but also the other steel-related businesses that it holds in the UK? Given the fractious nature of the past 10 days, how are the Government relating tousb the Chinese business that it still owns the site? What is the point of contact? Is it operational or departmental? Is it governmental, or is there no contact at all between Jingye and the people now running the plant? Can the Minister confirm whether there have been government-to-government discussions about this between the UK and the People’s Republic of China? Thirdly, following some discussion during the take-note debate last week, I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, who was present on the Front Bench at the time, asking them to clarify the basis of international law that the Government are using, at WTO, EU and domestic legislative levels, to justify subsidising the operational functions of a business that they do not own? Perhaps the Minister could alert her officials to the existence of that letter and chivvy along the response. In the Statement, in answer to the rhetorical question “What next?”, the Secretary of State said that “All options are on the table”. It would help your Lordships’ House if the Minister could explain what is meant by “all options”. More than this, I suggest that, to properly decide what should happen, the Government should have a very clear-eyed sense of their industrial strategy. We should not delude ourselves: the UK steel industry has been in a tough place for a very long time, and Saturday 12 April did not change that. For UK steel to flourish, it needs to be within an industrial strategy and within a defence industrial strategy. We are waiting for these, and the need for these anchoring strategies is ever more present. So, I ask the Minister: when will the industrial strategy be published? The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the Stellantis closure, which was announced on 29 November. This was surprising, because I would ask him: who was in government at the time that announcement was made? However, he said that steel is fundamental to Britain’s industrial strength, and we agree with that.

The noble Lord has got the dates wrong.

In that case, I withdraw the point. To make the statement true, the industrial strategy should explain how it is going to build the steel industry, what steels are needed and what processes can deliver them. I have an outstanding question on the different sorts of steels that can be delivered by blast furnace and electric arc furnace; that question still has not been answered. It is my contention that many of the specialist steels we require, particularly for our defence industry, cannot be produced via current electric arc technology. I would like an answer to that question. It should explain how the demand for UK-made steels will be stimulated and grown, and it should devise an ownership structure that actually fits in with that strategy. At the moment, we are looking at ownership before we look at what we want the industry to do. I suggest that we should be looking at this the other way around. Finally, unless the Government deal with the high cost of energy—which they did inherit from the Conservative Government—it is hard to see how any of this works. So, can the Minister at least acknowledge the problems faced by the whole manufacturing sector by disproportionately high energy costs, and can the Minister suggest how the Government are going to address that absolutely key issue?

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his question, and for acknowledging the pace of action to which many of us in this House responded. It really was a significant event, from a number of people, and I also extend my thanks in that regard. Steel is vital to the UK, and this Government were elected with a clear mandate to rebuild the steel industry after a decade of neglect, and to support steel-workers, their families and their communities for generations to come. We have committed £2.5 billion to doing so in addition to £500 million for Port Talbot. Resolving the years of uncertainty surrounding the future of the Scunthorpe steelworks has been a priority since our first days in office. We have worked tirelessly with Jingye and the trade unions to find a resolution for British Steel which protects jobs and ensures ongoing steel production. This included making a generous conditional offer of financial support and offering to pay for all of the company’s raw materials—offers which Jingye, British Steel’s owners, did not accept. On 12 April, the Government took the decision to recall Parliament so that we could take urgent action on British Steel. As noble Lords will be aware, this was the first time that this House has sat on a Saturday in over 40 years. Attendance in this place was testament to the significance of the issue at hand, which was to stop the immediate closure of the blast furnaces at Scunthorpe. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the specific steps that we have taken since the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act was passed on 12 April. As noble Lords are aware, the legislation gives government the power to direct British’s Steel’s board and workforce, to ensure they get paid and to order the raw materials to keep the blast furnaces running. It also permits the Government to do these things themselves if the circumstances demand it. We have wasted no time in enacting these powers and taking the urgent action required to keep the furnaces lit at Scunthorpe. Officials were on site to help British Steel within hours of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act becoming law, and we are already seeing the real-world impact of our decisive intervention. As a result, we have secured the raw materials needed to keep blast furnaces operating for the coming weeks, and we continue to work at pace to secure a steady pipeline of materials. I am delighted to say that British Steel confirmed on Tuesday that it can keep operating both of the UK’s last remaining blast furnaces, in contrast with the plans of the owners, Jingye, to shut one of them down earlier this month. These actions matter greatly for this country and are of enormous importance to thousands of steel-workers and their families. I am very pleased that British Steel also confirmed on Tuesday that it has cancelled the redundancy consultations started by Jingye. Now that the immediate emergency at Scunthorpe has been resolved, it is right that noble Lords ask questions about what is next. Officials met with Jingye on 16 April. It was a respectful conversation, and that dialogue will continue as we find a way forward, in the national interests, that safeguards steel-making and protects jobs. However, as the Minister for Industry stated on Tuesday in the other place, British Steel has suffered years of underinvestment. To secure its long-term future, we will need a modernisation programme, ideally with a private sector partner. Furthermore, we will need to look beyond any individual company and ensure a secure and thriving future for the whole steel sector, which is why we are continuing our work to publish the steel strategy this spring. I understand the points about the financial implications of our intervention in British Steel. In the interests of transparency, the Department for Business and Trade accounts for 2025-26 will of course reflect the financial support that the department has given to British Steel. It is also important to recognise that allowing British Steel to collapse was not a no-cost or low-cost option; it would have had far-reaching economic consequences, including the loss of thousands of jobs in an economically vulnerable area. The Government’s intervention to prolong blast furnace operations at Scunthorpe was a necessary investment in the future of our economy and national security. While the situation at British Steel has developed rapidly, we have also been working tirelessly to address the long-term sustainability and competitiveness of our steel sector. Our robust industrial strategy will be complemented by our steel strategy, due to be published in the spring, which will address the complex issues facing the industry, many of which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, acknowledged, including ageing infrastructure, high energy costs and intense global competition. We have assured this House that steel remains a priority under this Government. Steel is fundamental to Britain’s industrial strength, and British Steel has a central role to play. As we move forward, we will keep both Houses informed with regular written updates as policy develops and our longer-term strategy takes shape. I will speak to the Chief Whip about making a commitment that it will be debated here. To conclude, I reiterate the words of the Minister for Industry that “steel has a bright future under this Government”. This week is not the end: it is not the end of the work or the negotiations and, thanks to the actions we have taken, it is also not the end of British Steel.

14:58:00

My Lords, given that high energy costs and the increased national insurance contributions on employers are threatening the viability of British manufacturing industries, most especially steel-making, what do the Government propose to do about these additional costs?

Energy costs are high in the UK—I see that and regularly hear conversations about that, not just in this sector but in many industries manufacturing across the UK. The Government are already taking particular action on the UK’s high industrial energy costs, which are the highest in Europe and four times those in the United States and which have doubled in recent years. The British industry supercharger package will bring electricity costs down significantly once fully implemented from April 2025, ensuring that energy-intensive industries such as steel are shielded from future policy costs that would have a significant impact on their electricity costs. To be clear, things such as the net-zero transition are not causing this challenge; the challenge is securing the clean energy that we need to end our reliance on the overseas oil and gas market. Indeed, UK Steel, the trade body for the steel industry, has said that it is “the UK’s reliance on natural gas power generation” that leaves us with higher prices than our international allies; it is not too much clean energy but too little.

What about employers’ contributions?

We will write on that matter.

My Lords, following interventions from Lincolnshire MPs in the other House when the Statement was received, the Minister spoke specifically about the possibilities of further research into the use of hydrogen in relation to blast furnaces. Can the Minister comment on that? At what scale will research be undertaken to enable that to be part of the steel strategy in terms of powering blast furnaces in particular?

A significant part of the ongoing steel strategy will be thinking about how the provisioning of energy will be created for the long term as a reliable and sustainable source. That will form part of the long-term steel strategy plan that will be coming out. That will include provisions about how or whether it will appropriate to use hydrogen as part of that consideration.

My Lords, will the Minister find time today to look at the comments by one of the UK’s foremost energy experts, Simon French of Panmure Liberum, who recently pointed out that when the UK imports oil, gas and coking coal rather than relying on domestic sources the resulting carbon emissions are a staggering four times as high? Therefore, will she commit now to ensuring that the Government look very urgently at opening up coking mines in this country and, indeed, oil and gas fields in the North Sea?

There is an immediate and a long-term challenge here. The immediate-term one is working to make sure that British Steel has the raw materials that it needs to be able to keep those blast furnaces running. The UK does not have any operational coke ovens, so we are unable to change domestically mined coal into the coke that is required for blast furnaces. This means we are required to import it. There have been questions about whether we can be thinking about a Cumbria development to be able to source some of that, and it has been explored, but the current assessment is that coal from the Whitehaven mine, for example, has too high a sulphur content for British Steel’s needs.

The Minister has talked about transparency and updates, so may I please ask her—and I do not expect her to have this to hand now—for more detailed information? There are many noble Lords who would greatly appreciate seeing a very simple spreadsheet showing us the inputs and why it is apparently costing £700,000 per day to run this operation. Can she commit to providing us with the numbers so we can see where the costs are coming from, why and whether we can have a viable ongoing concern that might even break even?

Creating an ongoing, viable concern is absolutely the aspiration for the sector, not necessarily with regard to British Steel specifically, but the much broader sector. As I said earlier, we have the immediate-term question of how we make sure that the day-to-day operation of British Steel is ongoing and running. That second longer-term piece is how we make it a financially sustainable industry and one that is able to wash its own face economically. To that part, that is where that steel strategy is really core. With regard to the specifics of what we are spending in the here and now, that is absolutely information that will be made available within part of the department’s accounts when they are published.

My Lords, the annual volume of steel scrap exported from the UK was 7.22 million tonnes in 2023, 8.24 million tonnes in 2022 and 7.4 million tonnes in 2021. That figure is not going down: it is bobbling around, which is a product of both the supply of scrap steel from within the UK and what is happening in markets to which it is being exported, particularly the Indian subcontinent. My question is about the Government’s long-term vision. That amount of steel would ensure that if we were to recycle that ourselves under the best possible environmental conditions, we would obviously be creating jobs and opportunities to secure a supply of steel for the just transition that we need. Is the Government’s long-term vision a circular economy in steel so we are not exporting scrap steel?

I can confirm that thinking about how we create that circular economy within the steel industry and how we think about scrap steel will absolutely be a key aspect of the steel strategy.

My Lords, could the Minister give us any indication of how much of the steel that we hope will still be produced in Scunthorpe will be used for the defence equipment that we may have to produce in this country now because of our changing defence situation and for the house building we are planning to do?

With regards to the specifics of Scunthorpe, I am not yet in a position to be able to confirm how much that would be used domestically. Currently only 40% of the UK’s demand is provided domestically, so there is a significant domestic market that we could be looking to serve here.

My Lords, steel is a strategic national asset, which is, of course, why our Front Benches worked together on that long Saturday 12 April in a very enlightening debate, which was also informed by the background of US tariffs. Are the Government worried about the future of other strategic national assets, perhaps as a result of sky-high electricity price or inappropriate Chinese involvement? Cement might be one area, but I am sure the noble Baroness will be able to tell us what the Government are looking at in this area, whether there are causes of concern and how they are dealing with them.

The noble Baroness is right. Today’s world feels like it is changing from a Monday to a Tuesday. We must not forget that in all of this, we should have that north star—what are those assets that we have within the UK and those industries that we see encouraging all our future growth, and how can we support them? The purpose of the Government’s industrial strategy is to illuminate exactly that: how do we identify those key sectors and what are the facets that we need to intervene in to be able to support the growth? A key aspect of that is energy costs, which is why things such as the supercharger scheme is so important. They need to be targeted at those sectors that we see as really essential to the UK.

My Lords, I ask the Minister to reaffirm that the steel strategy is not mutually exclusive of the net-zero strategy but central to it going forward. There is an unfortunate tendency to think you can have one and not the other. Can the Minister confirm that the aim is to deliver one through the other?

I confirm exactly that: energy is going to be such an important growth driver across all our sectors, and a key one that we are talking about today is the steel strategy. For us to grow a sustainable and powerful industry within the UK, we need a sustainable and powerful source of energy that is generated here and that we can rely on. That is why the two go hand in hand.

I press the Minister further on the impact of the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions. What is the Government’s assessment of the impact of those increases on steelmaking?

I would be more than happy to follow up specifically in that regard.

My Lords, can I just push the Minister on the last part of my question? She answered my point about coking coal production in the UK, but not oil and gas fields in the North Sea. Is it now the Government’s intention to pursue vigorously the production in those fields in the North Sea, including Rosebank?

I am more than happy to follow up specifically on that matter with you separately.

My Lords, the Minister spoke about seeking new private sector involvement in Scunthorpe and the steelworks. We have seen so much private sector involvement in sectors such as the water industry, with essentially the privatisation of profits and cash and the socialisation of debts and costs. Can the noble Baroness assure me that that will not happen here?

I think we have been clear about the best way forward: we would like this to be a commercially run business, with private investment and government acting in support. But we will do whatever it takes to give the UK the best chance to safeguard the future of steel-making. That is why we would talk about the most likely outcome, as the Secretary of State has mentioned, being that of nationalisation.

If there are no further Back-Benchers, may I just ask a question of the Minister again, very briefly? We are impressed with her enthusiasm. Indeed, if I may say so, there is a spring in her step. She referred several times to the steel strategy being published in the spring. Well, I detect that summer—although we may not believe it—is just round the corner. So, when will that steel strategy be shared with this House?

I thank the noble Lord very much and I am proud that I have a spring in my step. I am just back from a bank holiday weekend which I spent in a garden, and indeed it felt very spring-like. But until I take those covers from my ferns, it is not yet summer.

15:11:00

Sitting suspended.