Andrew Griffith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Advanced Manufacturing · Hansard source

  More

  This week, our hard-pressed automotive industry has sounded the alarm: under the zero emission vehicle rules, British car makers are being fined for making precisely the type of cars people want to buy. That is costing them £5 billion a year, denying consumer choice, damaging British jobs and putting automotive firms at risk. Like me, the Secretary of State met with car makers earlier this week, so will he listen to them, adopt the Conservative policy of scrapping these rules and support our great British automotive industry?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Employment Rights Act 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Today, we Conservatives have launched a campaign to save the summer job. Employment rights do not help young people if they cannot get a first experience of work, and they are trapped in a Catch-22 situation of needing experience to get work but not being able to get any during their education years. Young people say it, businesses say it and Alan Milburn, the former Labour Minister, says it. Will the Government now back our plans to save the summer job, cut employment red tape, support seasonal working and lower taxes?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Steel Trade Measure · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. We welcome the partial U-turns that have been announced, the engagement there has been and the reflection, even at this very late hour, that the original proposals from the Government would have done great damage to British manufacturing. This decision could, however, have come months ago. If not, it could have come weeks ago, when Members of the House and businesses started raising the alarm and engaging with the Department. It took this Government—if Members can remember—more than a year and three quarters to come up with their original steel strategy, yet the industry is now expected to adjust with less than one week to go. That is not a reasonable way on which to proceed. The Government have left untouched the 50% tariff rate, and that will do great damage to British manufacturing, house builders and those who construct the nation’s infrastructure. It will mean higher inflation, fewer jobs, fewer homes and fewer public projects. The Government have made some welcome concessions on how much steel can be brought in but conceded nothing on the rate that punishes imported steel the very moment that the quota is exceeded. I know, as does the Minister, that he has received significant private representations from industry on this issue, particularly from defence and aerospace, and I imagine that the Minister does understand that this measure will not be enough. Of the 60 codes that we believe are relevant to aerospace and space, just two codes have been removed, and while quota uplifts have been applied, they are not particularly useful to the small-scale, high-value defence manufacturers, as commodity buyers will snap up all those quotas at the start of the year before they get a look-in. As a result, we are, I am sad to say, putting the defence of this country at risk by imposing a shock to defence industry prices, and it will either be the Treasury or the Ministry of Defence that picks up the bill. Projects such as AUKUS, Tempest, drones and much-needed munition rearming will all be vulnerable as a consequence. Finally, let me put some questions to the Minister on behalf of the industry. Will he commit to publishing the impact assessment on downstream steel sectors before Parliament rises for the summer? Does the Minister understand that by not exempting pre-agreed purchase contracts, which may in some cases run for years, he is damaging good, decent British manufacturing firms, even those in Rhondda and Ogmore? His exclusions rest on a test of “no production, or production paused”, but will he explain how he justifies keeping specialist grades in scope when in some industries, such as aerospace, it takes years to certify suppliers? Can he confirm that the EU’s reciprocal quota for exports from the UK will fully protect the 2.4 million tonnes of annual British exports of steel that would otherwise be at risk?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Steel Trade Measure · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that in a former life, the Minister was punctilious about standards in this House, so I seek your advice as to how he may correct the record. He referred to a letter that I believe he said his office had received this morning or yesterday. In fact, the Department will have received copies of two letters, one which was sent a week ago, not on my behalf, but on behalf of hundreds of thousands of small manufacturing businesses that were desperately worried, with one week to go before the tariffs. There was a second letter on Tuesday, jointly from me and the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), again, sent on behalf of this vital industry, which keeps us all safe. I have not yet received a reply to either of those. I would not necessarily have expected to, but it would not be right for the record to reflect that he had only received the letter this morning.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Support for rural areas, farming, country sports and the equestrian sector · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to present a petition from residents in my constituency of Arundel and South Downs in West Sussex. Hundreds of signatures have been gathered from local residents who see at first hand what feels like a constant attack on our countryside and country pursuits by this Government. For example, just in the past couple of weeks, we have seen the removal of plans for fast broadband fibre to thousands of rural homes. The petitioners therefore request “that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward measures to actively support rural areas, farming, traditional country sports, including trail hunting and shooting, and the equestrian sector.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of Arundel and the South Downs, Declares that the UK’s rural traditions and heritage are of great importance in preserving our natural landscapes and the wider economy. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward measures to actively support rural areas, farming, traditional country sports (including trail hunting and shooting) and the equestrian sector. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003212]

• 23 Jun 2026 · Draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 Draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. It is also always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halifax. She is the second Minister in her role in this Government, and I sincerely hope that we are not due a third. I wish her well over the coming weeks. There was a time— [ Interruption. ]

• 23 Jun 2026 · Draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 Draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  There was a time not so long ago when we had a Government who said that they were obsessed with growth—that it was their core, underlying mission. Casting my mind back to that moment makes me feel old, but my goodness, what a long way we have travelled over the last almost two years. I say that because no Government who were obsessed with growth, no Government who were genuine about creating the economic conditions for prosperity that provide our public services with the resource they need, and no Government who were sincere about giving the young people of this nation the opportunity to find work and climb the ladder of opportunity would, in all seriousness, have introduced these measures. It belies their lack of knowledge of working in business, for they do not understand the stifling impact of piling regulation upon regulation and doubling the period of jeopardy for an employer at a time when, as the Minister acknowledged, our employment tribunals are drowning, deluged and failing. I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have some appreciation, although maybe not the full horror, of what is going on right now in our employment tribunals. I would certainly like to hear more from the Minister and her officials about their plans to remedy a situation that we all should recognise as a crisis. To be fair, this did not all happen on the current Government’s watch. It dates back too many years, but it is getting worse by the week. The open caseload of single claims stands at a record 64,157 in the last available figures, which is a 55% increase in a single year. One does not need Carol Vorderman’s maths ability to understand that the backlog has grown by more than half in the last 12 months alone, firmly on this Government’s watch. It is not too late for the Government to recant, to see the light and the wisdom, on this statutory instrument, and perhaps ingratiate themselves with the next Prime Minister and Chancellor, who are more firmly committed to the growth that has eluded the incumbents. New single claim receipts rose by 39% last year to 50,000. That is the addition to the stack of claims, while—please write this down—disposals fell by just 12%. As we sit in this non-air-conditioned Committee Room this afternoon, more claims are being added to the pile. The backlog is growing. The prospect of claimants and employers receiving settlement of those claims now dates back more than two years in many parts of the United Kingdom. Again, I urge the Minister to correct me if any of these statistics, based on the figures of the Office for National Statistics on gov.uk, are somehow erroneous, or if I am portraying a false narrative of the situation as it exists today. In these Committee Rooms, we are supposed to engage our minds and properly look at the evidence, not just vote the way we are told. Wouldn’t that be a good idea: evidence-based policymaking, rather than simply yielding to whatever the Government ask and whatever officials put in front of us? The Government’s overall economic analysis of the Employment Rights Act, of which these regulations are a small measure, implies that the volume of cases in the failing, unreformed employment tribunal system is expected to increase by about 17%—this is the economic analysis of the Department for Business and Trade from January 2026. That is 17% more cases on a backlog of 64,000, which is growing by the day and resulting in delays to claims of more than two years in many parts of the United Kingdom. I will not detain the Committee with every single measure in the 330-page unemployment Act that the Opposition oppose—that is largely behind us—but there is no reason, when we are in a hole, to keep digging and make the situation worse. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that about 80% of the costs that the system imposes on employers are passed on through lower wages, so it is the workers we seek to represent, our constituents, who ultimately bear the cost. Business has continually warned that increasing the already 13-week time limit would potentially significantly increase the jeopardy and therefore the risk. And who ultimately pays the price? This may be a fact that Government Members do not wish to fully contemplate, assimilate and understand, but the people who pay the price are the young people who are denied those opportunities. I would be delighted if any Government Member wanted to intervene to tell me the rate of unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds today, and how much that has increased in the last 24 months under this Government as a result of both the swingeing increases in tax and the crushing amount of red tape. In the absence of anyone intervening, and to move us forward quickly, I can reveal that the figure is 16.2%. That means that one in six of our young people between the ages of 16 and 24 who are actively looking for work—who are dispiritedly firing off application after application—are simply unable to find the work that they seek. That is 735,000 young people, almost three quarters of a million. I believe in the good of Members, so I do not really believe that anybody on the Government Benches came here to put young people out of work, but the law that we pass most often is the law of unintended consequences. I urge Government Members to look at their consciences and decide whether putting more of our young people out of work is really what they came here to do. I will conclude with a few points to the Minister, if she would be so kind as to respond. First, she talked about the idea that six months is somehow fairer than three months. If that is the case, and if it is the Government’s position, will she make representations to the Chancellor to similarly apply that 13-week increase to 26 weeks when it comes to HMRC? The ordinary taxpayer does not have that same luxury of time. If it is the Government’s new principle that the only fair period is 26 weeks, there will be plenty of opportunities to extend that across to other parts of Government in a symmetrical way. Can the Minister share any specific assessment her Department has made of how many additional claims these two instruments alone will generate? We have heard about the 17% overall increase in tribunal claims, but can we have an understanding of the additional claims that relate just to these measures, so that Members can make an informed decision when they cast their vote? That is unless the Minister is kind enough to withdraw the measures today. Given the 64,000-case backlog, what resources does the Minister plan to give the employment tribunal to remove the constraining factors by having additional judges, hearing rooms and sitting days and longer hours? Perhaps she has a comprehensive plan that can reassure hon. Members that 64,000 cases is just a transient backlog, and that it will not grow. Finally, if the Minister is confident—as I am sure she is—about the Government’s reforms, which she mentioned in passing, will she commit today to publishing a clear timetable that identifies the day on which the backlog will be reduced to the pre-2024 level she inherited?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Steel Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that statement. Aerospace, the automotive sector, Formula 1, the construction sector, and manufacturing businesses that use steel, which employ 300,000 people, are all being impacted by Labour’s botched tariffs. Many specialist steels—the Minister may have heard this from manufacturing businesses—are not, as it stands, even produced in the UK. That is a real issue when it comes to, for example, categories 14 and 27, which are used in aircraft wings, or in defence applications that we need to make ourselves safe. Where defence companies have cost-plus contracts, the tariff on steel that is not made here will just get added to the bill for the Ministry of Defence. Will the Minister listen to Stephen Morley, president of the Confederation of British Metalforming, who says: “The UK risks accelerating the decline of its manufacturing base rather than preserving it”, or Simon Boyd from REIDsteel, a British steelmaker, when he says that these measures will kill off “downstream customers of steelmakers in the UK”? I am sure that is not the Minister’s intention, but with just two weeks to go, with respect, it is time to stop listening and start acting. Will the Minister answer three questions? First, will he confirm today that the measures will not be applied retroactively throughout the whole life of existing, agreed contracts? Secondly, will he exempt steel—especially in categories 14 and 27—that is simply not made here in the necessary volumes? Thirdly, after listening to industry, will the Government please delay these tariffs for at least six months so that they can get this right?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Steel Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on steel tariffs.

• 4 Jun 2026 · High Street Businesses: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, and to make common cause with so many hon. Members. Our passion for our high streets—something we share, as proud representatives of our constituents—has come through in all the contributions to the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for sharing that with us. I speak on behalf of my own wonderful high streets in Midhurst, Storrington, Arundel, Steyning, Petworth, Pulborough and Henfield —we are so lucky to have them, Ms Lewell. I hope that you will come and visit them, and the Minister always has an invitation to see the wonderful enterprises in my constituency. Here I fear that the consensus may break down a little, but I hope that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage and his colleagues will join me in condemning the decision of my local Lib Dem district councils to increase parking charges and bleed the life out of our high streets—an unwarranted headwind, transferring economic life into the coffers of the town halls. I invite the hon. Member to join me in seeking to reverse that unwarranted decision. The Minister is a good man, and many of these measures were not of his making, but I fear that what we are seeing is the Government’s fundamental—albeit perhaps unintentional—misunderstanding of business: what it is to combine so many different factors of production, to take risks and to try to give back, through economic activity, to our communities. We heard many examples of that today. We heard about the difficulty for employers of making ends meet with the unwarranted increase in national insurance—not just the rate but, in particular, the threshold. Anyone who really understood the granularity of business, and the number and mix of part-time employees who were previously outwith the national insurance net, would never have made the decision to reduce the threshold from £9,100 to £5,000, encompassing at a stroke hundreds and thousands more employees. What do businesses do when faced with the anaemic top-line growth in the economy and the pressure on consumer household spending? They have to sit down on a Sunday afternoon and work through the shifts, trying to pare back hours and work out which employees they may let go. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) the challenges of making the business rates calculation add up. I accept that this challenging problem did not start at the last election—I am very ecumenical in that sense; it has been creeping up on us for a long time—but the first and best advice that I got was that when you are in a bit of a hole, you should stop digging. Rather than the permanently lower business rates that we were promised and that businesses relied on—many placed their votes accordingly —we have got permanently higher business rates. That started with a swingeing increase. The Government, under pressure from other parties represented in this House, listened—eventually—and have mitigated that increase through some welcome measures in the short term, but they have done nothing to provide the long-term relief that for many would mean they had a viable future as a business. I know that the Minister will have been given some brilliant lines to read out this afternoon, but I ask him, in all seriousness, to hear the will of the House on the perennial challenge of business rates, perhaps work on a cross-party basis and see what we can do over time to lance this very difficult boil. This is part of an overall picture of spending first and taxing second—certainly, that is the view of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, from his description of meetings with so many of his colleagues. The challenge is that we are just not seeing any top-line growth, any confidence in the economy, anything to make people think that it is a good idea to go and start an enterprise, to hire people, to take some risk in our high streets. We all want that for our communities. We want our high streets full of lively, independent, diverse shops catering to the needs of local people, not merely those catering to the lowest common denominator —vape shops—or, meritorious though they are, charity shops in perhaps too great an abundance. There is a real desire to work on the future of the high street, because we all care so much about it. We need the employment opportunities for our young people. We have heard about the challenges for the hospitality sector. VAT is of course one potential relief, but what people are telling me is, “Just do something. Stop piling more and more taxes and levies”—packaging taxes, bed taxes—“on us. Let’s have a little bit of a moratorium.” My party’s fully costed plan would go much further by taking 250,000 small businesses out of business rates entirely. I know that the Minister will disagree, but I am afraid that we would go back to the very settled status of employment law that was good enough for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. It persisted for many years and gave many of our young people the opportunity to get their first foot on the ladder, particularly with starter jobs. Indeed, some hon. Members have spoken today about their own first experiences working in hospitality and retail. I will leave it there, but I am very keen to hear from the Minister what new hope he can inject into our souls and hearts—we want to take it back to our high streets to give people good cheer, so that they are no longer just surviving, but thriving. I leave the final word to the Prime Minister’s Chief Secretary, a man infamous for his self-confidence and, I am told, more than a little ambition. Upon discovering that the nation’s growth plans are in the hands of the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), he said: “It doesn’t fill you with confidence.”

• 21 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. I hope he would agree, cross-party, with the Tony Blair Institute, which has said that the UK must restore “dynamism” to its labour market, rather than imposing restrictions such as the Employment Rights Act 2025. Could the Secretary of State, who is a good man, at least promise me that, if he gets to serve as Chancellor in a Government led by his friend, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), he will use that chance to change the Government’s approach?

• 21 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  First, I congratulate the Government on securing the Gulf Co-operation Council deal. Success has many authors, and Members on both sides of the House have been part of these negotiations as Ministers, but a win is a win. These are— [ Interruption. ] These are our historical friends and allies, and this is part of a growth agenda. Summer is approaching and young people are graduating. The Office for National Statistics reported this week that, as a direct result of this Government’s choices, one in six young people is looking for a job, but cannot find one. Sectors like retail and hospitality are shedding jobs by the thousands. Will the Secretary of State finally accept that, well-intentioned or otherwise, the Government have got it wrong?

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) have made exactly the right point: we need a more thoughtful approach. I have written to the Secretary of State, as have many of my colleagues, asking that the tariffs are delayed for six months while the Department does more work; that the Government investigate more specialist grades of steel; that within the broader tariff buckets, they look again at the steel alloys used in the defence, aerospace and automotive sectors that are simply not made here today, because there are perhaps unintended consequences of the tariffs; that they be more forensic in their approach; and that they bring forward the measures the Conservatives have talked about on industrial energy costs, which are damaging not just the steel industry but many other industries’ and our basis on which to compete. There is no point securing what the Secretary of State thinks is in the national interest for one steel manufacturer in a particular location if the foreseeable consequence, unintended or otherwise, is to ship offshore large parts of our high-end automotive manufacturing, engineering and defence industries, so that they are lost forever and conducted in other countries. I have raised that serious point with the Minister, and I ask him to address it.

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I am going to make some progress on tariffs. A number of hon. Members have raised this very important issue, shedding light on the way that the Government are tilting the playing field on tariffs. Under this Government, we have already seen a flurry of Trump-style tariffs—doubling steel tariffs and halving quotas—that elevate the interests of one firm over the automotive, aerospace, advanced manufacturing and defence sectors. Firms involved in the supply chains of AUKUS and Tempest are now looking at shifting tooling and jobs to other countries, instead of manufacturing components here.

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The only way we are going to have a sustainable steelmaking industry in this country, and the same applies to the manufacturing sector and our defence supply chain, is lower energy costs. That is the only sustainable way.

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point, and that point has been made by other hon. Members and across the manufacturing industry. We are at risk of losing critical parts of our defence, aerospace and automotive supply chains.

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That was a waste of an intervention. If the hon. Member lets me continue, I will explain exactly what the Conservative plan is for British Steel, and it is a better plan and a more sustainable plan than we have heard from the Secretary of State today. This Government did not inherit—

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill because it believes that politicians should not be running businesses; because expropriating businesses sets a precedent that will deter inward investment into other UK businesses; because the Bill exposes taxpayers to unlimited liabilities; because the powers that the Bill confers on Ministers are far wider in scope than would be required for its stated purpose; and because it fails to contain any measures that would address the issues which are currently making domestic production of steel unprofitable such as higher employment costs and policies in pursuit of net zero, such as carbon taxes and associated regulations and levies.” Conservatives will never be neutral about the deindustrialisation of our country, but we do not believe that politicians or Whitehall bureaucrats should run businesses. Instead, we need a Government who do fewer things better, such as defending our nation, securing energy supplies and restoring the nation’s finances. We believe in British steelmaking and the importance of sovereign capabilities—not just steelworks, but the steel supply chain, critical minerals and many defence- related technologies—but that is not what this Bill does. This Bill is the Government’s attempt to break out of a mess we warned one year ago they were getting themselves into, and it fails even in the Government’s own terms. It does not keep the blast furnaces open and it does not guarantee that military needs can be met domestically. Let us be clear what we are doing today. We are being asked to nationalise British Steel, and put the British taxpayer permanently on the hook for a business that this Government had every chance to keep in private hands, but chose not to. They ignored plans to open electric arc furnaces on Teesside, and chose to let the situation deteriorate until the only option left was the one that suited their ideology. The Prime Minister went kowtowing to China, gave it an embassy spy base and, instead of a deal on Jingye, came back with a box of fortune cookies with only a bill for the taxpayer to be found inside.

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that the hon. Member ought to look again at the calendar, because I was not only not in Government but not in this House—I was getting on in business trying to help grow the British economy. When the same issue arose in Port Talbot, it was the previous Government—indeed, my right hon. Friend who is now the Leader of the Opposition—who took action and were willing to back the private sector owner to secure the future of steelmaking in Wales. That was what we did in Government. We are talking about the issue of tariffs because it is intrinsically related to the Government and the taxpayer taking ownership of one participant in a complex industry supply chain. I know that on the Government Benches, some of the truths that we share today may not be immediately popular, but past Governments failed because they were happy to do what was popular in the moment, without looking at the long-term consequences. The truth is that we should not be nationalising British Steel, and certainly not with the Bill in this form—my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East made the point about the sweeping nature of the clauses, whatever we think about the Secretary of State’s intentions. We have demonstrated in the past, and we will again, that there are other options, such as partnering with the private sector and negotiating a better deal. The Conservatives would fix the cause, not the symptoms; we would save steelmaking in this country not through state quick fixes, but by fixing the state itself. We would not pit industries against each other, as Labour is now doing, and we would not sit idly by for a rerun of the 1970s horror show that Labour made Britain sit through the last time around.

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way if it is about this particular point.

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will be very brief. I thank the Minister for his remarks. One ideological difference he has not mentioned once is the huge gulf between those on our side and his party on energy, and the Government are not going to have a sustainable steel industry due to energy.

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will happily give way, as long as the hon. Member is going to talk about our cheap energy plan.

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member would be better addressing that question to his own Ministers, who, notwithstanding the nationalisation, acknowledged that the blast furnaces will cease—they will go dark and close on this Government’s watch. The Bill does not protect blast furnaces and he should invite the Minister, when he winds up, to talk about the future there. There was a plan to invest in British Steel in Redcar to secure those jobs, but the Government pulled the chain—

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When it suits the hon. Gentleman, he claims to be a fan of the late Margaret Thatcher, but he seems to have forgotten that most of her time in office was spent untangling the mess of Labour’s past nationalisations. Unlike him, she did not bend with the wind or find herself in the same Lobby as a Government who have hiked taxes to record highs, driven wealth offshore and drowned business in red tape. Members would like to know what our plan is, and our plan is to address the cause, not the symptoms. [ Interruption. ] Labour Members would do well to listen to this, and we might have more of a steel industry left if they do. We cannot have an industrial policy for steel without an energy policy for industry. Britain has the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, and every choice the Government are making has pushed those prices further up. This week, they voted against new licences in the North sea, choosing to import from Norway gas that could be drilled here, at a cost of 200,000 jobs and £12 billion in tax revenue. The Secretary of State knows this and his Back Benchers know this, but the Prime Minister is too weak to stand up to his windmill-fetishist Energy Secretary. We have offered an alternative. Our cheap plan would slash energy prices and improve energy security. Why would the Government not want that? If they were genuinely interested in securing the future of steelmaking, as well as those of many other industries, they could have come here today and adopted that plan. Instead, this Bill is an indictment—

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We have a plan for sustainable steelmaking. The Government do not have a plan for sustainable steelmaking. Ministers themselves have admitted that the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe will close. They are reverting to a plan that already exists. The Bill is an indictment of this Government’s modus operandi—a spray and pray Government who write blank cheques from the taxpayer and call that a strategy. We are doomed to relearn the hard lessons of the 1970s: if it moves, tax the hell out of it; when it stops moving, subsidise it. It was socialist idol Tony Benn who wanted to nationalise everything that moved, and one result that the Government may care to look at was the state-owned Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering company, which simultaneously made car radiators and orange juice. When the Government last ran British Steel in the late 1970s, the company’s losses hit £1.3 billion a year. Since Labour’s botched nationalisation of just a year ago, it has already spent £500 million of taxpayers’ money—£1.3 million a day. Where is the Government’s published, costed and scrutinised plan for what nationalised British Steel will look like in five years’ time, or even in one year’s time? I have read the Bill and there is not one. There is no provision for a proper impact assessment before the sweeping powers are used. There is no acknowledgment of the monumental decommissioning liabilities—in the billions—that will sit on the Treasury’s balance sheet. There is a sunset clause, but it can be extended indefinitely by Ministers—a sunset where the sun never sets. The House deserves better than this. We deserve a Bill with a proper thought-through plan. The Government have turned a negotiation into a crisis, a crisis into an emergency and an emergency into this nationalisation. We know that Ministers, however well-meaning, will be unable to resist using their power to tilt the playing field in favour of steel businesses that they themselves own: no longer the referee, they will be on the pitch wearing one of the teams’ shirts. There is no better example of that than their plans on steel tariffs.