Jonathan Reynolds
MP for Stalybridge and Hyde · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“I thank my hon. Friend for her engagement, her support and her advocacy on behalf of her constituents. This has been and is a difficult situation for them, and it is exactly because of our commitment that we are seeking to resolve things in a favourable way.”
“I welcome the support from the hon. Gentleman for the decisive action we are taking. On his point about potentially combining British Steel and, if it were acquired in the public interest, Speciality Steel UK, I urge caution in that regard.”
“I think it important to point out that there are costs either way: there are costs involved in running the business in public ownership, and there would also be costs to the state from the remediation and regeneration, partly because of the legacy of public ownership but also because such big steel industrial sites come with so many issue…”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her advocacy on behalf of her constituents. She and I have discussed the matter several times. For colleagues who are less aware of the issue, Dalzell is a separate legal entity and company from Speciality Steel and thus separate from the full plans that we are talking about.”
“The process to date has in effect been working with potential private sector bidders on the viability of their plans. That task is entirely different from what we can do now, which is essentially to assess whether there is a viable future for this business under public acquisition.”
“Of course, CBAMs are fundamentally about trying to maintain fair competition between carbon-intensive sectors in developed countries such as ours and the rest of the world, so there is a little bit of incoherence there, to say the least.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Jonathan Reynolds, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 13.
“When we took office, years of Conservative neglect had left our steel industry on the brink, but while others were willing to let the heart of British industry go cold, we were not. I welcome the recent conversion of Opposition colleagues to an active industrial policy, but make no mistake: while others may talk tough, only Labour can be trusted to act in the interests of British workers. When the future of British Steel was on the line, we took immediate action. I can report to the House that thanks to our intervention we have secured the raw materials to keep Scunthorpe’s blast furnaces lit, and British Steel has cancelled the redundancy consultation, which put 2,700 jobs at risk.”
“I welcome the progress being made in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—I thought he was about to invite me there, which is often the case at topical questions, but I sadly did not manage to secure an invitation. I have been absolutely clear: I genuinely wish the inheritance of this Government was a better one in economic terms than the one we received. I genuinely wish the Conservative Government had not left that black hole and that we had not had to make difficult decisions, but life is sometimes about difficult decisions, and Government and business certainly are as well. Without investment in infrastructure, without a serious approach to the fiscal rules, which was absent for much of the last Government, and without investment in the health service, we would struggle.”
“Again, as I said when Parliament was recalled, the question there was whether we would pay a significant amount of money for the total loss of the business; give a large amount of money to Jingye, but without the certainty that it would be able to deliver on that plan; or step in and take the action that we did, which I am confident was the right option for value for money and for Scunthorpe.”
“The shadow Secretary of State points to the statement in which I said that in the previous budget there was a £2.5 billion allocation for the green steel fund. Of course, that came in addition to the £500 million for the Port Talbot transformation, which was agreed under the previous Government but was not in the Departmental accounts—as he knows, it was in a heavily oversubscribed Treasury reserve. Yes, the green steel fund will be there to support what we have had to do at Scunthorpe.”
“I will write to him with the details if he is not confident in the decision that we have made, but it was the right decision not just for the steel industry but for the taxpayer.”
“I recognise the shadow Secretary of State’s concern, but let me reassure him on that point. The options available to the Government were: first, the total collapse of British Steel, which would have had an incredible cost to the Exchequer of well over £1 billion; secondly, the request from Jingye for £1.2 billion, which the Leader of the Opposition said she did or did not agree to in some way with it going to Teesside, at very significant cost; or thirdly, as we have done so far, the provision of working capital to British Steel in order to pay wages and continue the purchase of raw materials and the operation of the business. Of course, those costs will be incurred by the company, because they will enable it to produce and sell steel.”
“I am always keen to support my hon. Friend, and I will certainly consider that legislation. We are not a protectionist Government—we welcome open and free trade—but we believe British goods can compete on quality, and his area is a fine example of that. Where British goods are being undercut, not by price and fair competition but by misrepresentation and fraudulent practices, we take that seriously and have taken more powers to deal with it. I am sure that he will raise this shortly during the urgent question. We will ensure that we give him the support he needs to pursue it.”
“I am grateful to finally get an invitation to somewhere. We understand that there are significant pressures for many businesses, and the global situation certainly will not provide reassurance in the short term. The measures in the Employment Rights Bill are not in effect yet and will take some time to come in. Since the election, nearly 200,000 jobs have been created, so the labour market is holding up particularly strongly. There are particular issues such as making sure we get probationary periods right and that zero-hours contracts are monitored in the right way, and we are working with business on that.”
“I can absolutely give that assurance. I have had meetings about this issue just this week. We are ambitious for the just transition for Grangemouth and recognise the issues not just with the refinery but with the polyethylene cracker. We will get to work and set that meeting up.”
“I feel that is a question for either the Treasury or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but the hon. Lady made it well. Agriculture features prominently in trade and business, and I will ensure that she gets the right opportunity to put questions about taxation to the Chancellor.”
“I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. We always seek to keep colleagues in Northern Ireland well briefed on a range of issues, particularly some of the complexities around trade that have come out of the Windsor agreement and need to be managed carefully. I do not think I have had a specific conversation about the matter he raises, but this is a good opportunity to say that I think I should, and I will. I am grateful to him for getting that on the record.”
“The amount of working capital provided to British Steel to date stands at £94 million, which is considerably less than if we had given a large amount of money to Jingye, or if we had had to deal with the complete loss of the entire British Steel site and business.”
“We should always be careful about what we read in some newspapers. [ Laughter. ] The hon. Gentleman knows that we cannot give a running commentary on trade negotiations, but the UK-India talks have been fruitful this week. I am optimistic and excited for the future of what is a key relationship bilaterally and for the signal it can send to the rest of the world.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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 absolutely understand and welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s question. I do not want these powers for a minute more than is necessary. I cannot say at the minute, having drafted the Bill, the timeframe for which they will be required, but I will endeavour—and I commit at the Dispatch Box—to keep the House updated. Perhaps I will ask the Business and Trade Committee for its involvement, in order to make it clear how long we believe it will be. To be absolutely specific, where we make an order in relation to control of a steel undertaking, we can revoke the regulations once that control has been established and is no longer required.”
“I know there is huge interest, but I will make a little more progress and that might deal with some of the matters Members want to raise. This is what it means to be a Government unashamedly on the side of working people—one that will never hesitate to take action to protect this nation’s assets and economic security. I understand that some have asked about precedent or referred to other troubled industrial situations. To be clear again, this is an exceptional and unique situation. The question for all Members is whether we as a country want to continue to possess a steel industry. Do we want to make the construction steel and rail we need here in the UK, or do we want to be dependent on overseas imports? As a Government, we are not passive in any way about the future of British industry.”
“Member will know that the commercial interest was not in the Scottish yards, but we held them together precisely because of our commitment to Scotland and the Union. It is also why within weeks of taking office we secured a better deal for the workers at Port Talbot. We have repeatedly acted, and we will continue to act no matter how hard the circumstances.”
“I am pleased for the chance to address this issue. The importance of Grangemouth is why this Labour Government have pledged £200 million to secure its long-term future. It is an important asset, but it is not the only remaining refinery; it is one of three crackers in the United Kingdom—that is important. Specifically, it is not a comparable situation, and the behaviour of the company is not comparable to the case of British Steel. I also say to the right hon. Member, and indeed to all Members, that this is why we fought and fought again to secure the future of British shipbuilding by saving all four of the Harland and Wolff sites in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The right hon.”
“I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments entirely. I do not believe there is a history of the SNP calling for the nationalisation of Grangemouth. It was, as ever, on the bandwagon. I think we all recognise that the SNP does not campaign on its record in running Scotland; it campaigns on grievance. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the contrast is with a Labour Government in this place who are on the side of working people everywhere.”
“To be clear, the £2.5 billion green steel fund the Chancellor has put in place is in addition to the £500 million already going to Port Talbot. That is an incredibly important point.”
“I am incredibly pleased to have the chance to answer the point my hon. Friend raises. The Port Talbot deal was originally negotiated by the previous Government. I did try to reopen it; I went to see Chandra in Davos and flew to Mumbai to talk to him about it. To be frank, I kept Port Talbot open on polling day, because it would have closed due to the industrial action that almost took place. The previous Government were nowhere to be seen, even before the result of the election was in. We were not able to reopen the deal, but we did negotiate a better deal. As a result, Port Talbot is in a stronger position than British Steel, because it has a long-term future in place. [ Interruption. ] This is because we improved on the deal that the Leader of the Opposition botched at the time.”
“I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Lady, but the blast furnaces have already closed at Port Talbot. They are not available to be saved —that situation has moved on. Let me stress again: Port Talbot is in a stronger position because it has that long-term future in place and the potential additional investments through the green steel fund.”
“I wish to make it unequivocally clear to the House that the new Government inherited no such deal. We could not renege on that deal because it did not exist. On day one, I was told that there had been a lack of progress on this matter to date.”
“This Government are backing the builders, not the blockers. With the action we take today, we have the chance to feed that boom with steel made in Britain. The legislation we are setting out today will help to end the uncertainty that has been hanging over British Steel’s Scunthorpe site for too long. I welcome the Opposition’s support today for this recall, but this issue should have been resolved years ago. I believe they may now view it as a mistake to have given this essential national asset to this company. I have to address the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, which I do as a matter of genuine regret. She claimed that while she did my job, she negotiated a modernisation plan with British Steel to build an electric arc furnace at Teesside, followed by one at Scunthorpe.”
“We remain in close engagement with all the unions, which have been monitoring the situation closely. Again, I reiterate that the Bill is not in itself about a change of ownership; it is about a change of control to rectify the situation. However, I will certainly have regard to the comments my hon. Friend has made and, of course, the role of the workforce at all stages. We will never accept the argument that steelmaking is a sunset industry. Steel is vital to every bit of the modern economy. Domestic demand for steel is set only to go up, not down. In the past few weeks alone, we have seen Heathrow airport announce multibillion-pound expansion plans requiring 400,000 tonnes of new steel, and Universal Studios confirm it will be building Europe’s biggest theme park and, where possible, will use UK-made steel to do so.”
“If such a deal was negotiated, somehow in secret, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to say how much money she agreed to give Jingye for this deal and what conditions were placed on it. To state the obvious, building two electric arc furnaces in two different locations would be more expensive than building one in one location, and, given that Jingye’s request to build two furnaces in Scunthorpe was for £1.2 billion in taxpayers’ support, what—”
“This is an excellent chance to clarify that. If the Leader of the Opposition agreed a deal with Jingye to cause massive job losses in Scunthorpe and transfer the jobs to a completely different place, and at higher cost than the request the company made to us, I think she should be able to tell us. I am more than happy to give way.”
“This is genuinely revelatory. I say again: if Jingye’s request was for £1.2 billion to build at lesser cost in one place, what was the sum of money agreed by the Leader of the Opposition when she was Business Secretary to build in two places? It certainly was not in the accounts that the Chancellor had. I will give way. How much money was agreed to Jingye to close the jobs in Scunthorpe? I ask her.”
“Our friends in the press will follow that up and find out exactly how much money the Leader of the Opposition secretly promised to Jingye to transfer those jobs out of Scunthorpe. I think it might be wise, on all counts, for that statement to be withdrawn. The situation we inherited across the board on assuming office is one where most of our foundation industries were in some substantial difficulty. Since 2010, UK crude steel production has almost halved, and we know that rebuilding our steel industry after years of neglect will be a challenge, but it is one that this Government have grasped.”
“I am really grateful that my hon. Friend has been able to put that point on the record for his community, to avoid the kind of situation we have seen in lots of industrial communities, to be frank, over the years. This is why we take this action today in the national interest: to provide that bridge and that possibility to the future. Specifically in relation to the downstream mills, even if we were willing to accept a situation in which they were supplied from a foreign country, as in this case, the confidence of consumers and businesses would surely be put at risk and it would bring into question the entirety of British Steel’s workforce and business and a huge part of our strategic assets. That, again, is why this decisive action today is necessary.”
“The hon. Lady will know that the company brought into question whether that coal was the right grade for blast furnace supplies. I remember several debates in this place about that. I should also make it clear—I think hon. Members understand this—that we are talking about two blast furnaces that date from the 1930s and 1950s. We must also be looking to the future, to new technology and new investments. Crucially, having the dedicated resources that this Government have put into steel is why we have the chance to look to the future with optimism. The UK steel industry is an outlier, in the sense that it is a much smaller proportion of our overall economy than in any major comparable economy, so of course there is potential, and we should look to the future. I would be more than willing to work with the hon. Lady as a local MP to do so.”
“Today’s legislation will help ensure that we can retain that steelmaking capability here in the UK both now and for years to come. For British workers’ security, for British industries’ future and—without hesitation—in our national interest, and for the workers of British Steel and their families, this action is essential, and I commend this Bill to the House.”
“The hon. Member puts it extremely well, if I may say so. The people who have upheld steel as the backbone of construction in the UK for decades deserve better treatment than they would have had if Parliament had not been recalled today to take this action, and we should all bear that in mind. Whether it is at Port Talbot, via our upcoming steel strategy, via our work to improve public procurement, or in the introduction of our industrial strategy to tackle the most thorny issues of industrial competitiveness, where others have shied away, this Government have stepped up. Let me conclude by saying that steel is fundamental to Britain’s industrial strength, our security and our identity as a primary global power.”
“As I tried to articulate in my opening speech on Second Reading, I understand the gravity of the situation, which gives puts some context to the demands for further powers to be included in the Bill. The limitation, as wide as it is, is the right measure, and I can give the hon. Member my absolute assurance that I shall seek to do exactly as she says.”
“I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that point on the record. It is precisely because of those concerns that we were able to have ready a legal route to intervene to directly offer support to purchase raw materials. What we could not have anticipated or expected was for a company to act in an irrational economic manner when such a clear, distinctive and generous offer was made.”
“This is such an important point, and I will be exceptionally brief, but the right hon. Gentleman knows from debates that he and I have been in that I am obsessed with the issue of industrial energy prices and by the very substantial rise from 2010 to 2024—a 50% real-terms increase. As I think he knows, the two fundamental issues are: first, our network charges and how we do those, which is different from other countries; and secondly, fundamentally, the marginal cost is set by the price of gas—the fossil fuel price—for the overall system. I am not completely rejecting everything that he is saying, but we must understand that key point: it is the gas price.”
“We will strike trade deals with our partners and work closely with our allies for our shared prosperity. We have a clear destination to deliver economic security for working people. We are progressing a deal that can do just that, laying the foundations to move quickly should it not, and ensuring that British businesses have a clear voice in what happens next. I commend this statement to the House.”
“This Government will strive for a deal that supports our industries and the well-paid jobs that come with them, while preparing our trade defences and keeping all options on the table. This is the right approach to defend the UK’s domestic industries from the direct and indirect impacts of US tariffs in a way that is both measured and proportionate, while respecting the rules-based international trading system. As the world continues to change around us, British workers and businesses can be assured of one constant: this is a Government who will not be set off course in choppy waters. The final part of our approach will be to turbo-boost the work this Government are doing to make our economy stronger and more secure, including our new industrial strategy.”