Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

   Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

   I actually think the hon. Gentleman is also agreeing with me on this point. I yield to no one in my admiration for the Minister and his expertise in this industry, but I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he too thinks that it will take business nous and investment into this business to bring it back to a state where it is making money. I also heard him say that he would therefore not object to hearing a report to Parliament every six months about the progress being made, so I look forward to him supporting this amendment in the Lobby later. We want our Ministers to actively work towards returning the business to private ownership, so we want to hear in Parliament about that ongoing progress and to be able to hold Ministers accountable and ask them questions on exactly that from time to time. New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament every six months on the impact that nationalising steel undertakings has had on inward investment into the UK. I mentioned earlier that the Government’s own impact assessment worries about the potential for a “chilling effect” where Government are taking assets into public ownership in the way that this Bill allows. During its history, the UK has very much relied on being seen as a stable and predictable environment for inward investment. Expropriating and nationalising private businesses sets a precedent that could deter future investors, not just in the steel sector but across the wider economy. The new clause would ensure that Parliament received a regular, transparent analysis of how these interventions were affecting investor confidence and capital flows into the UK economy. We all hope that they would not be adversely affected, but we would want Parliament to know, and this new clause would ensure that any damage to our reputation was identified, understood and addressed early. New clause 11 would prevent the Secretary of State from using the powers in the Bill to grant any selective advantages through state resources that could distort competition. It would ensure that nationalised steel undertakings were not unfairly advantaged over privately owned ones. Without this safeguard, there is a real risk that nationalised entities could receive preferential treatment, whether through subsidies, contracts or regulatory advantage, undermining fair competition within the domestic steel sector. If private firms believe they will be placed at a disadvantage compared with state-owned competitors, that risks deterring further investment in UK steel and related supply chains. To conclude, these amendments are about bringing discipline, transparency and balance to a Bill that, as drafted, risks being too broad, too costly and too unconstrained. They would ensure that any intervention was properly assessed, carefully limited and consistently scrutinised, while protecting taxpayers, competition and investor confidence. If the Government are serious about supporting the steel industry, they should also be serious about accountability, value for money and a credible long-term plan, and these amendments are designed to deliver exactly that.

   Hansard source
2. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

   Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

   I think it has been clear throughout these two days of debate that none of us in the House underestimates the importance of the steel industry to our national economy, to our industrial resilience, and to the communities whose livelihoods depend on it. We can all agree that steel matters, and that steel jobs matter. However, we also believe that the responsible stewardship of taxpayers’ money matters, and despite the eloquent way in which the Secretary of State expressed his views on the Bill, we see it much more as a chaotic and unplanned intervention. It is not the product of a clear steel industrial strategy, but the product of a failure to negotiate a better outcome. The negotiated outcome was a possibility; the Secretary of State even went to China to try to achieve it. It is the failure to address the root causes of the industry’s difficulties that has brought us to where we are today. The Bill could also be described as the steel industry blank cheque Bill, because it fails to protect the public purse from potentially vast and open-ended liabilities. Nationalisation does not solve the underlying issue that is making domestic steel production unprofitable. The higher employment costs, higher energy costs, planning issues, carbon pricing, regulation and levies associated with the Government’s net zero policies continue to weigh heavily on the sector, and the Bill does nothing to resolve those pressures. Instead, it transfers them wholesale on to the taxpayer. We should reflect on how we came to this point. Not long ago, the Government told the House that they did not want to nationalise British Steel—indeed, that was presented as a last resort to be avoided—and yet here we are, because the Government have failed to negotiate an alternative. We see once again that when this Government negotiate, it is the taxpayer who picks up the bill. Since the intervention began last year, on that historic Saturday, the cost has already run to more than £1.3 million every single day. That is a bill for the taxpayer that will only become larger with this legislation. The Bill exposes the public finances to further liabilities—contingent liabilities, not only substantial but, alarmingly, potentially unlimited in terms of both their scale and their duration. This is a Government getting a blank cheque forever.

   Hansard source
3. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

   Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

   Surely what the hon. Member should do is welcome the fact that our party is under new and outstanding leadership. We believe that politicians should not be in the business of running commercial enterprises, but I can see that that is the political position of the Reform party. The risks of inefficiency, political interference and poor capital allocation are very well known.

   Hansard source
4. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

   Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

   It is a bit rich to be lectured on support for party leadership from someone on the Labour Benches, so I will move on swiftly. This Bill sets a precedent. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment says that expropriating assets in this way risks undermining the investor confidence that we need at this precise moment, when the UK needs to attract inward investment into strategic industries. Throughout our Committee considerations, we have sought to improve this legislation to introduce better transparency for Parliament, to limit liability and to ensure proper parliamentary oversight. I thank my team, the team of Clerks, the whipping team and you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Throughout this process, our amendments were responsible safeguards; they were designed to protect the taxpayer and to impose discipline on the Government. Their rejection only reinforces our concern that Ministers are unwilling to confront the full implications of their own policy. As we come to Third Reading, the choice is clear. This Bill risks enormous cost, offers insufficient answers, and sends troubling signals about the UK as a place to do business. We cannot support it in its current form. We will not vote against its Third Reading today, but for the sake of the taxpayer, the health of the steel sector and the credibility of industrial policy in this country, we cannot support it either.

   Hansard source
5. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

   Order. Mr Stone, we are here to debate the steel industry, not new nuclear or the pros and cons of the Scottish Government. Perhaps it is better if we stay within the confines of this Bill.

   Hansard source
6. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

   Order. I just want to make it clear that I did allow some latitude, but this is a debate on the nationalisation of the steel industry, not tariffs.

   Hansard source
7. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

   I am going to allow the Minister to respond, but I am not going to allow this to turn into a debate on tariffs and how they may or may not impact individual companies around the entire country, which I fear is where we are headed.

   Hansard source
8. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

   Before we proceed to the next business, I have a short statement to make. I have received a report from the Tellers in the No Lobby on the Division that took place in Committee of the whole House at 8.27 pm yesterday on new clause 2 to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill. The hon. Members for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) have informed me that the number of no votes was erroneously reported as 257, rather than 251. I will direct the Clerk to correct the numbers in the Journal accordingly. The ayes were 65 and the noes were 251. —[Official Report, 8 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 111.] Third Reading

   Hansard source
9. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

   I call the shadow Minister.

   Hansard source
10. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Business without Debate

    I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and indeed for notice of it. She obviously knows more about the contents of this Thursday’s business statement than I do. I understand that the Bill was published when it was presented, just after 3 pm, but that a technical problem meant it was not easy to access online. I understand that copies are now available in the Vote Office. It would have been courteous for Ministers to offer the hon. Lady advance briefing on the Bill—particularly if they intend to expedite its passage through the House—but I am afraid that I have no power to compel them to do so. Adjournment (Summer and Conference) Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25), That this House, at its rising on Thursday 16 July 2026, do adjourn until Tuesday 1 September 2026; and at its rising on Tuesday 15 September 2026, do adjourn until Monday 12 October 2026.—(Gregor Poynton.) Question agreed to. Delegated Legislation (Committees) Church of England (General Synod) (Measures) Ordered, That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Clergy Conduct Measure (HC 221), which was laid before this House on 3 June, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Gregor Poynton.)

    Hansard source
11. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Health Inequalities

    West Sussex county council’s health and adult social care scrutiny committee has concluded that the closure of Zachary Merton hospital in Rustington “constituted a significant variation” in services. Given the statutory requirements for consultation—promised, but never delivered—when can residents expect a decision on my call-in request?

    Hansard source
12. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Topical Questions

    T7. Thousands of people in West Sussex are unable to access an NHS dentist and many constituents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tell me that they have been unable to secure an appointment for years. What specific steps is the Secretary of State taking to increase NHS dental capacity in coastal communities, and when does he expect patients to see a measurable improvement?

    Hansard source
13. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Business without Debate

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I was left with no choice but to make a point of order on the Government’s refusal to give briefings to shadow Ministers on national security matters. Today, we are told that the Government wish to push through the National Security (State Threats) Bill next Wednesday in just one day. Once again, the Government failed to offer a briefing to the official Opposition, yet this morning—five hours before the Bill was laid in the House—the media had a one-hour briefing at the Home Office containing the detail. As a shadow Minister, I have now been invited to a one-hour briefing on Monday night—a day after amendment submissions close—with every other MP in the House. Can you kindly guide us on how the Opposition can get the briefings we need so that we can hold the Government to account, not least when they are seeking to rush legislation through the House?

    Hansard source
14. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

    I should say at the outset that I associate myself with the remarks made by other hon. Members about the terrible attack in north Belfast last night. Although there are still many details to emerge from the case, it is very clear that the PSNI responded quickly and very bravely to what was an incredibly dangerous situation. I am proud to say that the people of north Belfast responded very bravely in the face of lethal force. It is very appropriate, then, that we should find ourselves debating this motion tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton). I congratulate him on securing this debate. I echo the remarks about the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s service not just to the people of Northern Ireland, but to the United Kingdom as a whole. PSNI has a national role in policing our land border, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, but it also has a central role in our national security apparatus. It is right that hon. Members from Northern Ireland and Opposition Front Benchers should be able to question Ministers on that national security element. I have some sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). It is clear that the devolutionary settlement has been failing the people of Northern Ireland in policing terms, not because of any failure of the PSNI, but because of short-term, misguided decisions by some politicians in Northern Ireland. It is wrong that citizens in NI should see their police service about 1,000 officers short of where it should be, in contravention of agreements that the Conservative party made in government with counterparts in Northern Ireland. It is unsettling to realise, when we see this situation, that there is really no lever at our disposal to right this wrong. As I have said on previous occasions, there is more of a role for central Government in ensuring that the national security and border elements of policing in particular are given appropriate resource in Northern Ireland. I have listened closely to the sensible remarks made by all hon. Members. I believe that there is a deal to be struck here. Part of the benefit will accrue to the people of Northern Ireland, and part of it will accrue to the people of the United Kingdom more widely. It is not in the Minister’s power to make a deal on his own, because it is a Treasury matter, but I am sure that, as a rising star within the Labour party, he has great friends in the Treasury and will use those friendships and connections to mark out what that arrangement might look like.

    Hansard source
15. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

    The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I will turn to it in a moment.

    Hansard source
16. 9 Jun 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

    As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes an extremely astute observation. I suggest that we perhaps try to find the time to have a full Westminster Hall debate on the Barnett consequentials and formula with particular regard to Northern Ireland, as there are a great many technicalities that we could go into. Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for North Down, I simply mean something along the following lines: if the Treasury was minded to honour its 1998 obligation to provide a new training college, it would only be fair to require, in return, a very solemn undertaking by the Northern Ireland Executive that, within a short and fixed term, we would make up the current deficit of 1,000 officers. I think it would be quite wrong if a new facility were built at considerable cost—a necessary investment, in my opinion—but we were still here another 10 years down the line, with the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and people across the United Kingdom, saying, “Why are the numbers in PSNI much lower than they should be?” If the Treasury chooses to enter into such negotiations, as I very much hope it will, there will need to be some reciprocal element from the Executive to ensure that any new facility is used to its maximum extent for the benefit of people not only in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom.

    Hansard source
17. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Cuba: Humanitarian Situation

    I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for securing the urgent question, and to the Minister for his response. The imposition of tariffs is a bilateral matter for the US and Cuba. We are appalled by Cuba’s record of abusing its civilians’ political, civil and human rights. The Cuban regime’s record is shameful, and we should be wary of narratives that seek to explain Cuba’s current difficulties solely through external factors. The reality is that the Cuban people have endured decades of economic stagnation, political repression and the denial of basic freedoms under a one-party communist system, and any assessment of the present situation must acknowledge the wider context. I turn to the Minister’s response. Can he tell the House what recent discussions Ministers have had with the US Administration regarding developments in Cuba and the actions of the United States? Can he set out what engagement the Government have had with the Cuban authorities? In those discussions, have Ministers raised concerns about human rights, political prisoners and democratic freedoms, alongside the humanitarian issues? Finally, are the Government considering a humanitarian response and, if so, how will they ensure that that assistance reaches the Cuban people directly and is not diverted for the benefit of a regime with such a poor record on human rights and civil liberties? The House would really benefit from a clearer statement of the Government’s overall policy towards Cuba at what is clearly a significant moment for the country and its people.

    Hansard source
18. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Progression of Bills through Parliament

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Hansard source
19. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Progression of Bills through Parliament

    It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. The challenge this case brings up has been seen over and again in this place. It is not just about the legitimacy of the Commons. The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) said this is about not just parliamentary democracy, but constitutional reform. That is a perfectly acceptable position to hold, but it is not a matter specifically related to the assisted dying Bill. What the hon. Member is suggesting, and it is a perfectly legitimate point to make, is that, actually, our parliamentary system is completely broken, that no revision is possible from the second Chamber, and that the second Chamber should not have a voice on how those amendments are made. Again, that is a perfectly acceptable point to make, because if we are to have the system that we currently have, and if we are to use it in the way that we currently do, I am afraid the position that the Lords have taken is completely legitimate. What they have done—totally within their own rules and totally in the way that House works—is that they have listened to outside voices; they have heard from other sources, as well as from those that were heard in Committee or in the debate in our own Chamber; they have tabled some amendments, some of which have been accepted and others rejected by various people in the Lords; and they have come to a position.

    Hansard source
20. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Progression of Bills through Parliament

    I will not be giving way on that. If the hon. Member for Sunderland Central does not like that position, or the way in which the Lords run their business, that, again, is a perfectly legitimate thing to say, but then he is asking for very fundamental constitutional reform. Again, that is completely okay, but to do it on the basis of a petition of 140,000 names strikes me as a somewhat ambitious reading of the settled will of the British people. We have somewhere between 60 million and 70 million people—I am not quite sure where the figure sits today—and 140,000 does not sit very high against that number; it sits pretty low, frankly.

    Hansard source
21. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Progression of Bills through Parliament

    On the contrary, I think what the hon. Gentleman is arguing, although he may not think he is arguing it, and he is perfectly entitled to ignore what he is arguing—it happens all the time in this place, it is absolutely standard, for Members on our Benches to make one argument and mean another—[Laughter.] Members on all of our Benches. Come on! Let’s not have the hypocrisy; we all know it is true. It is absolutely true that we hear, on every side of the House, people making one argument and meaning another all the time. Today, the hon. Gentleman is making the argument for constitutional reform, but he actually means he is in favour of assisted dying. Again, that is a completely acceptable position, but it is not frank; it is not being straight with the House and it is not being straight with people. All I ask on this is that, when we look down at the questions that have been raised and when we hear, for example, the voices of the disability groups, the various different medical groups and all the royal colleges, all of which rejected this Bill, and we say to them, “Look, we really must legislate at speed because there is a pressing need to do so,”—the hon. Member is really making the Mark Zuckerberg argument. He is making the “move fast and break things” argument.

    Hansard source
22. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Progression of Bills through Parliament

    I will not be giving way again. That is a perfectly acceptable argument for those who can afford to fail, but the problem is that the hon. Member is not dealing with the investment of a few people, which may or may not start a business or software company that fails or succeeds; he is playing with the lives of thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people.

    Hansard source
23. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Progression of Bills through Parliament

    I will not be giving way again. The hon. Member for Sunderland Central is instead saying that the role of democracy is to behave like the private interest group of a small cabal. I do not believe that is the case. I believe that the role of democracy is to measure, to weigh and to take matters slowly. If, on a matter of life and death, that is not the case, when are we supposed to be measured and take time? Before people say that we had a long time in Committee, they should never forget that we start working on Government Bills years before—not weeks, not months, but years. Any of us who have introduced a Bill in this place know exactly what I mean. A Bill starts as an idea. It takes two years, normally, before it even gets to the Leader of the House and his various Bill committees, where we test, adjust and play with the Bill with the different Ministers, and the write-round process. The argument that that period of expertise, from Government, civil servants, lawyers, medical experts and all the others, can be replaced with a brief hearing in Committee is, I am afraid, simply not true.

    Hansard source
24. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Progression of Bills through Parliament

    The hon. Member may think it is long, but she really has no idea of time if that is her perception. The reality is that Government Bills take time because they have to be got right. This Bill is wrong. The only thing that stopped it was the Lords. If the hon. Member for Sunderland Central wants to abolish the Lords, that is fine, but if he could make that argument, I think we would all be a lot happier.

    Hansard source
25. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Progression of Bills through Parliament

    The right hon. Gentleman is making the entirely valid point that democracy is not just what happens in either Chamber, whether it is the Lords or the Commons, and democracy cannot be reduced to a number, whether it is an electoral number at a general election or a number in the Chamber. Democracy is what we do between times. I keep hearing that we Conservatives had 14 years in government—I do not deny that, and I recognise many of the errors that we made. But is it not also true that there were 10 years between the first and second votes on this campaign? Much of the democratic process could have been done in those 10 years through public debate, engagement and lobbying, instead of its being reduced to the actions that happened in the Chamber? Frankly, that is reducing democracy to a game of mathematics.

    Hansard source
26. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Topical Questions

    Further to the answer given to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) earlier, Mohamed Fayed is beyond the reach of terrestrial justice, but many of the ladies he abused are still waiting for justice. The Metropolitan police has been conducting an inquiry into the activities of those who aided and abetted Fayed for many months. Will the Home Office ask the Met to expedite the inquiry so that those ladies can at last have justice?

    Hansard source
27. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Water Companies

    Since Mr Speaker allowed me to ask an urgent question on Wednesday last week, to which the Minister helpfully responded, it will not surprise her to know that I have received quite a number of public comments concerning the performance of South East Water, most of which are not repeatable before the watershed. Two issues clearly have come to light and struck a chord. First, it really is time that the water companies were allowed to act as consultees in planning applications, because we are building house after house after house without saying where the water is going to come from, and of course the water companies have a statutory duty to provide it. The second point that has come through loud and clear underscores something that the Minister said to me, which is that it really is time that every new house built had a grey water system, because we are pouring water that we cannot afford to waste literally down the drain.

    Hansard source
28. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Oliver Dowden

    Extremism

    I am sure the Minister will have seen footage of a recent attack on Helen Mirren, where she was described—excuse my language, Mr Speaker—as a “Zionist bitch”. This is just another example of deliberate extremist intimidation aimed at frightening off anyone in public life from supporting the existence of the state of Israel or defending the Jewish community. While Helen Mirren decided not to press charges, does the Minister agree that the police should treat such assaults with the utmost seriousness, as they are attacks not just on the individual, but on our shared values in this place of freedom of speech and freedom of expression?

    Hansard source
29. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Digital Safety: Children

    As long as children are given access to social media I very much doubt that it will be possible to prevent them from seeing harmful content. Given the strong assurances from the Minister that he will certainly be taking action to prevent them from seeing extreme content, can he explain to the House what sanctions will be available effectively to punish those social media companies that defy the legislation?

    Hansard source
30. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Water Companies

    I would like to record my appreciation of the consistent campaign waged by the hon. and gallant Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), which included bringing the real-life activists on whom the “Dirty Business” docudrama series was based to the House of Commons where we could meet them. I noted what the Minister said in her reply to him about no new reservoirs being built. Does she think any new reservoirs could ever be built without direct Government intervention?

    Hansard source
31. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Cuba: Humanitarian Situation

    I entirely agree with the Minister when he says that the future of Cuba should be decided by the Cuban people. What assessment have the Government made of the likelihood of the Cuban Government ever allowing the Cuban people to take those decisions?

    Hansard source
32. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Digital Safety: Children

    While I welcome the Government’s belated intention to act in this area, does the Minister agree that there would be no need to wait for legislation if the social media companies actually started to enforce their existing age requirements for participating online? Many children under the age of 13 are able to create accounts and interact, despite the fact that that is completely against the terms of the platforms.

    Hansard source
33. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Progression of Bills through Parliament

    I have not participated in the debate because I was not able to be here at the beginning, but I heard many of the speeches. In a number of them, it was suggested that the Bill received unusual levels of consideration. That is simply not so. Many of us have been in this House for a very long time and have seen legislation that has had pre-legislative scrutiny in both Houses, and independent reports commissioned on it, long before Second Reading. This Bill had none of that.

    Hansard source
34. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Progression of Bills through Parliament

    rose—

    Hansard source
35. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Digital Safety: Children

    The Minister is aware of my concern about the interaction between whatever the Government choose to ban and the workings of the Online Safety Act 2023 that we already have. I know the Minister recognises that that is an important interaction. Will he reassure me that the Government are fully aware that whether they ban access to social media entirely for children, or ban specific functionalities, we will need to ensure we do not undermine the duty of care that the OSA requires of social media platforms and others?

    Hansard source
36. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    I will focus my remarks on clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill and the breadth of the powers that they give to the Secretary of State. I start with the meaning of a “steel undertaking” in clause 1, which is one “that carries on a business consisting of or including…the manufacture or processing of steel, or…iron”. As the Minister will know, I raised in an intervention on the Secretary of State on Second Reading—indeed my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), who speaks from the Front Bench, also mentioned this earlier—that that wording could appear to include undertakings that have as little as 1% of their business in iron or steel.

    Hansard source
37. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    I recognise that the hon. Gentleman does not normally engage in the detail of legislation, but if he did, he would know that this is the Committee stage, where we look at the detail. What the Government could perfectly properly do is pass the legislation, as amended by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire, and if they felt at the end of the sunset clause period that they needed further powers, they could come back to this House with further primary legislation and seek our consent to do that. The difficulty with what we have before us is that the Secretary of State has the power to extend the sunset clause indefinitely, by regulations, over and over again. That is what the wording of the Bill says, and that seems to me to be something we should not accept here. What we should do is reinstate the natural, ordinary meaning of a sunset clause, which is set out in clause (3)(1), by removing the rest of that clause. If, as the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) suggests, the Secretary of State wants to extend those powers, he should seek the authority to do so in primary, not secondary, legislation. These deficiencies in the Bill are cumulative: the power to indefinitely extend the Secretary of State’s proposed powers is more pernicious because the powers are so broad, and the huge latitude that he would have to define the public interest matters more because the Bill may apply to many more companies than might have been thought when hearing the Government’s original intentions for the Bill. Plus, of course, the Secretary of State’s consequent powers, which are set out in the rest of the Bill—having decided to nationalise and make that initial transfer decision—are mostly constrained only by the scrutiny of secondary legislation, so the initial transfer decision is all the more important. It is my view that the Secretary of State’s powers, as defined in clauses 1, 2 and 3, are simply too wide and need to be constrained. The Government make two substantive arguments in response to that view, and I want to address those arguments. The first, which the Minister put forward earlier, is that the Government are doing only what a previous Government did in the Banking Act 2009, and that the powers they seek to take here are no wider than those taken in that Act. I do not agree, for three reasons. The first reason is that the powers in the Banking Act were premised on the existence of a special resolution regime, where the bank in question was already in financial trouble. As far as I can tell, this Bill does not require the relevant steel undertaking to be in any trouble at all for nationalisation to be an option. The second reason is that the Act provides for a temporary transfer to public ownership. This Bill does not use the word “temporary”, and again, I can find nothing in the Bill that prevents a nationalisation being permanent. The third reason is that the Banking Act requires the Treasury to consult before using its powers under that Act. There is no requirement in this Bill for the Secretary of State to consult anyone, so I am afraid it is just not like the Banking Act. The Government’s second argument, which I discovered lurking in the memorandum from the Department for Business and Trade to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—I am sure we have all read it— is that broad powers such as the right to define the public interest are “buttressed by administrative law, including the need for interferences with property rights to be proportionate”. Of course, that is so: the courts may intervene if the Secretary of State tries to use his powers irrationally or unreasonably, but Parliament should not be subcontracting our work to the courts. If the legislative powers as drafted are too broad, it is up to the legislature—us—first and foremost to constrain them. The Secretary of State has consistently maintained, as has the Minister, that he wants only the powers needed to act where Government action is unavoidable, and only for the period needed, but the powers that he has in the Bill go well beyond that, and they could and should be restricted.

    Hansard source
38. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    I understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. He has referred several times to the series of proposals being made in Committee by the Conservative party, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin). They come to this: that no Government should be able to create for themselves a very wide definition of what a steel undertaking should be, that they should not be able to define for themselves without restriction what the public interest may be, and that they should not be able to extend indefinitely, without parliamentary authority, the effect of the Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he objects to in those proposals?

    Hansard source
39. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Water Companies

    Is not the root problem a profound failure of regulation over the last 25 years, for which Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems all bear responsibility? We have regulated for lower prices and more investment, but we have not stopped companies from loading up their balance sheets with debt, which means higher prices and less investment. I am not a believer in nationalisation, because I know from having been Chancellor that the state will never find the £104 billion now promised by the private sector, but if we are to stick with private companies, do we not need to regulate differently so that we have lower prices and more investment?

    Hansard source
40. 8 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Digital Safety: Children

    In my constituency, this issue is of real concern to parents as well as children. Some of the big tech companies seem to resemble the big tobacco companies of the 1960s. We have had a great deal of briefing from the Government, and we have had an announcement that was not made in the House. Will the Minister commit himself to coming to the House when the guidance is ready, to set out exactly and clearly the steps that the Government will continue to take to give real reassurance to the parents in my constituency who are so concerned about this matter?

    Hansard source