Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. I should say at the outset that, above all, our thoughts are with the more than 1,300 employees of Speciality Steel UK and their families, who once again face considerable uncertainty about their future. However, I am afraid that this announcement appears to be a sign of things to come under this Government. When Parliament was recalled last year to pass the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act, we were told that these extraordinary powers were required to deal with the immediate crisis at British Steel. When the Government returned with their nationalisation legislation earlier this year, Ministers again presented it a targeted, last-resort response to the situation at British Steel. British Steel has since been nationalised, yet the Government have still failed to secure the private investment needed for its long-term future. Now, only two months later, we have another steel company moving towards public ownership after the proposed sale to Blastr fell through. Why did that deal fall through? Yesterday the Guardian quoted a Blastr spokesman as saying: “We have a fully-funded proposal—at no cost to the British taxpayer—that is ready to complete within 12 weeks”. Surely the bigger question is: why does the private sector increasingly find it so difficult to invest in British steel companies? Surely part of the answer is that successive decisions by this Government have made Britain, and particularly energy-intensive industries such as steel, simply too expensive in which to operate. Our industrial electricity prices remain among the highest in the developed world, around four times those faced by manufacturers in the United States. Then there are the additional employment costs. The Government’s own latest assessment puts the direct annual cost to business of the Employment Rights Act at around £1 billion. During the passage of that legislation, businesses repeatedly warned Ministers about its cumulative impact on investment and recruitment. During the passage of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill, we on these Benches gave Ministers opportunities to address some of these underlying problems. We sought greater discipline over regulation and reporting, proper scrutiny of taxpayer liabilities, and action on the cumulative burden of carbon and energy policy. Instead, from 1 January next year the Government will introduce the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism. Their own figures forecast that the CBAM will raise £140 million in 2027-28, £180 million the following year and £175 million in 2029-30. Those costs ultimately fall on imported steel, aluminium, cement and other materials used throughout British manufacturing supply chains. At the same time, domestic steel-makers remain exposed to the UK emissions trading scheme and the Government are now negotiating to link that scheme more closely with the EU’s ETS. We also understand that the Government wish to participate in the EU internal electricity market. The negotiating framework envisages dynamic alignment with relevant EU electricity rules and an indicative UK renewable energy target comparable to that of the European Union. That will only add more costs. The new Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has spoken of the need for greater realism in our progress to net zero. Can the Minister therefore tell the House whether that realism will translate into a material change in energy policy for energy-intensive industries? What specific action will the Government now take to bring industrial energy prices materially closer to those faced by our major international competitors? The Business Secretary told the other place yesterday that public acquisition could require approximately £350 million, including the acquisition itself and working capital over a period of one to three years. The taxpayer is already supporting Speciality Steel UK to the tune of a reported £3.5 million a month in salaries while production remains largely dormant. Can the Minister therefore tell the House the Government’s current estimate of the total taxpayer exposure? How much has already been spent? How much working capital do the Government expect to provide? Will Ministers publish a clear timetable setting out the expected costs over the next three financial years? What is the exit strategy? Yesterday, the Business Secretary said that his ideal remains for the company “to be run in the private sector”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/9/26; col. 1441.] —and that he is “keen” to see it return to private ownership. If that is the objective, will the Government commit to publishing measurable conditions for doing so, as well as to regular assessments of opportunities for private investment and a clear process for returning Speciality Steel UK to private ownership? Public ownership does not in itself give workers long-term certainty. A competitive business, sustained investment and customers who want to buy steel domestically give workers long-term certainty. That matters particularly when the Government tell other sectors that there is no money available. Only yesterday, the Government were defending their refusal to reduce VAT for our struggling hospitality sector on the grounds of the cost to the Exchequer, yet when another nationalisation is proposed, hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer exposure apparently becomes possible. We cannot return to a model in which the Government continually absorb the losses of industries that their own policies have helped to make uncompetitive. The Minister will know the history as well as anyone in this House: Britain tried widespread state ownership of major industries before. By the 1970s, taxpayers were repeatedly required to support loss-making nationalised industries, while investment, productivity and competitiveness suffered. That experiment ended at the IMF, and, looking at gilt yields today, that is again where the markets think we are headed. We do not want to see that history repeated. Will the Government recognise that nationalisation is not an industrial strategy? Will they instead set out a serious plan to slash industrial electricity prices, reduce the costs of unnecessary regulation, make Britain internationally competitive again, and create the conditions in which private investors want to invest in British Steel?