Today saw only the fourth Saturday sitting of the House of Commons that I can remember.

The first was in 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falklands. I remember listening as we stripped the walls in my bedroom.

The second was in 2019 when I, along with hundreds of thousands of others was on a People’s Vote march outside. The atmosphere that day was very muted. We kind of knew we were on our way out of the EU despite the drama inside.

The third was when the late Queen died in 2022.

Today, the Government was awarded some pretty sweeping emergency powers to secure the future of the steel industry. I was pleased to see our Daisy Cooper secure a commitment from the Secretary of State to give them up as soon as they could.

The first Lib Dem to speak was Ed Davey, intervening on Jonathan Reynolds to make a point about some in the room:

We will scrutinise this Bill today, but we want to do so in a constructive fashion. Given the huge damage that President Trump’s tariffs have done to the British steel industry, accelerating this crisis, does the Secretary of State agree that any Member of this House who actively campaigned for President Trump’s election and cheered him on has behaved shamefully unpatriotically and should apologise to British steelworkers?

Reynolds didn’t take the bait on that one, but the point was made. Nigel Farage’s show outside the steel works this week was pretty much the first time he had taken any notice that it existed.

Christine Jardine intervened on Liam Byrne to ask about national security:

Does the right hon. Member agree that there is a wider issue at stake: our energy security and national security? We have seen what can go wrong with a Chinese company that we do not trust, and we see Chinese influence increasing in other vital sectors, particularly our energy industry. Should that not underline our concern and act as a warning that we do not want the Chinese to have control of our energy supply?

Daisy Cooper then gave her reaction to the Bill as spokesperson:

Recalling Parliament today was absolutely the right thing to do, but to be frank, it is extraordinary that we find ourselves in a situation in which our sovereign steel industry is in such peril as a result of the Conservatives’ failings and the Labour Government are now trying to give themselves unprecedented powers.

It is astounding that, even after British Steel was sold for £1, even after it entered insolvency and even after the Government’s Insolvency Service temporarily ran it, the Conservatives pressed ahead to erect more trade barriers through their botched Brexit deal, scrapped the Industrial Strategy Council and allowed the sale of the steel plant to a Chinese firm that, according to Ministers, is now refusing to negotiate in good faith at least to keep the plant going. The Conservatives were asleep at the wheel. They failed to tackle energy costs and business rates, and now Trump’s tariffs and contagious protectionism are the straw that has broken the camel’s back.

With Putin’s barbaric war in Europe and Donald Trump’s disastrous tariffs causing economic turmoil around the world, we must secure the future of steel production here at home. We Liberal Democrats welcome the sense of seriousness and urgency shown by the Government in recalling Parliament. We must work together to rescue our steel sector and the tens of thousands of jobs that directly and indirectly rely on it. But under the terms of the Bill, the Secretary of State is giving himself huge and unconstrained powers that could set a very dangerous precedent. I urge him to make a commitment, in the strongest possible terms, to repeal the powers that he is giving himself as soon as possible—within six months at the latest—and to come back to this House for another vote to extend those powers if they are still required after that.

Reynolds gave her the commitment she was looking for:

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.

Daisy continued:

I am incredibly grateful to the Secretary of State for giving that assurance, which is important in the context of what the powers in the Bill actually are.

Clause 3(4)(a) gives the Secretary of State the power to break into anywhere to seize assets. Clause 3(4)(c) gives the Secretary of State the power to take whatever steps he considers appropriate—not what a court or a reasonable person might consider to be appropriate—to seize or secure assets. Clause 4(3), on offences, makes it a crime for anyone not to follow the instructions of the Secretary of State, or to refuse to assist the Secretary of State in taking those steps without a “reasonable excuse”. However, a “reasonable excuse” is not defined in the Bill, no examples are given, and, quite frankly, it is hard to work out what defence of a “reasonable excuse” might be accepted given that, under clause 3(4)(c), it is whatever the Secretary of State himself considers to be okay.

Clause 6(1), on indemnities appears to give the Secretary of State and potentially any other person who is with him—a police officer, a civil servant, or a Border Force official—immunity from prosecution for using any of these wide-ranging powers. These powers are unprecedented and they are unconstrained. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for saying that that is precisely why he intends to repeal them as soon as possible.

More broadly, the Government must now also bring forward plans to guarantee the future of this vital sector. We know the steel industry is surrounded by crippling uncertainty. After decades of underinvestment and shocking indifference to our sovereign economic security, the previous Conservative Government have left our sovereign national capacity on steel diminished and endangered. Yet there is no chance that UK demand for steel will disappear. How absurd and irresponsible is it that we have a sustainable and enduring long-term market for British steel, but that our supply could keel over in a matter of days because of the failures of the failed Conservative party?

So looking ahead, let us remember that saving Scunthorpe is necessary, but not sufficient on its own. There have been significant discussions about the future ownership structure of this company. Given the precarious fiscal position in which the Government find themselves, it is important that all options on ownership are put on the table, so that this House can take an informed decision about what they mean for the public finances. I hope the Government will make a commitment that, in the coming weeks, they will bring forward a report that sets out options for future ownership of the plant.

Looking ahead, many big questions remain unanswered. Will the Government immediately designate UK-made steel a nationally strategic asset? Will they be using direct reduced iron, and, if so, will that form part of the UK’s plans alongside protecting the production of virgin steel at Scunthorpe? When will the Government bring forward a comprehensive plan to ensure that more British steel is used in vital infrastructure projects, from defence to renewable energy? Will Ministers work shoulder to shoulder with our European and Commonwealth partners to tear down trade barriers, including by negotiating a customs union by 2030? Will they develop initiatives to retrain and upskill workers across the country as we transition to greener methods of steel production? How do the Government intend to respond to calls from UK Steel for the Government to achieve the lowest electricity prices in Europe, parity with competitors on network charges, and wholesale electricity market reform?

This case should also raise concerns about the role of Chinese corporate interests in the UK’s national critical infrastructure. The decision by British Steel’s Chinese owners to turn down the Government’s offer of £500 million to support the future of the Scunthorpe plant has directly precipitated this crisis. We must now be clear-eyed about the risks posed by Chinese involvement in our country’s vital infrastructure. To that end, will the Minister tell the House when the Government’s promised UK-China audit will be released, and how the Government plan to strengthen protections for critical infrastructure? Can he assure the House that the Government have assessed whether there is any risk that Jingye, on behalf of the Chinese Government, has deliberately run down the plant to jeopardise the UK’s capacity to produce steel?

We are in a precarious position, and it is not as if there were no warnings. In 2022, the Royal United Services Institute think-tank said:

“Domestically produced steel is used in defence applications, and offshoring the supply chain may have security implications—for example, in a scenario where multiple allied countries rearm simultaneously at a time of global supply disruption, such as during a major geopolitical confrontation.”

The fact that Jingye has now closed down the supply of raw materials is further evidence that the plant should not have been sold to it in the first place. Quite frankly, the fact that some Conservative MPs are calling for nationalisation shows how far through the looking glass we really are.

Is not the Conservatives’ attitude abundantly clear? On national security, they cut troop numbers by 10,000; on food security, they undermined our farmers with unforgiveably bad trade deals; and on economic security, they left our country with almost no sovereign steel capacity. On security, the Conservatives left our island nation severely vulnerable, like flotsam in the sea, passively bobbing up and down or being bashed around by the tides of international events.

As for hon. Members from the private limited company Reform Ltd, they have a bit of cheek to claim to support UK steelworkers while cheering on their pal Toggle showing location ofColumn 857President Trump, whose punishing trade war is putting those steelworkers’ jobs at risk. Perhaps the company’s directors who sit in this House will come clean about whose side they are really on.

Time and again, we have seen the failures of an ad hoc, piecemeal approach to industry across all sectors, from the failure of our water companies to the shocking state of our housing nationally and the dismal situation of our health service. For too long, there has been no stability for these industries, which are constantly fixed on a short-term basis only, to the point where they are practically held together by string and tape and the dedicated workers who remain. We Liberal Democrats stand ready to help constructively to bring about an outcome that delivers real change.

Welsh MP David Chadwick told the House that his grandfather worked at the blast furnaces in Port Talbot and expressed his annoyance that the steel works there was just left to close without a recall of Parliament to save it:

Last year, the Government said they would introduce a new steel strategy that would create more well-paid jobs in the places where they are most needed. Following last year’s closures of the blast furnaces at Port Talbot, many of my constituents have lost their jobs or seen their incomes fall. That includes the thousands of workers who were laid off at the plant itself, but also those further down the supply chain, including haulage drivers and payroll clerks providing services to the 2,000 local businesses that have been impacted by that closure.

The closure of Port Talbot’s blast furnaces started an economic contraction in south Wales that is still under way. Many highly skilled workers, particularly welders, are leaving south Wales in search of opportunities elsewhere. It is rubbing salt in the wounds for the people of Port Talbot to hear the Government now acknowledge the importance of primary steel production as a strategic national asset. Where was this urgency when Welsh steel communities were crying out for support?

Last year, when Tata Steel announced over 2,800 job losses at Port Talbot—the largest steelworks in the country, a key strategic asset, and the manufacturing heart of south Wales—there was no recall of Parliament, no Saturday sitting, no emergency legislation and no rapid mobilisation of the Government to save the day, despite every warning sign being there. The unions raised the alarm and industry experts warned of the economic shock, but the warnings were ignored. Now, faced with similar risks in England, the Government suddenly rediscover their ability to act swiftly.

The simple fact is that the Government did not recall Parliament for Port Talbot, and they did not recall Parliament for Wales. If today’s decision is in the national interest, why did the Government not offer similar protections to Port Talbot, which had more capacity and greater output? Have the Government been fenced in by closing the blast furnaces at Port Talbot too early? How much of the steel supply chain will the Government now commit to protecting?

Employment at Port Talbot fell from over 18,000 employees at its height over the past few decades to around 4,000 before last year’s closure decision, and now there are just 2,000 steelworkers employed there. Those jobs are sorely missed. Welsh steel is all around us, and Port Talbot once produced the steel used in everyday products such as Heinz baked beans tins. It is absolutely right that we are now acknowledging the importance of domestically produced steel. Communities that once powered the UK’s growth, particularly the Swansea valley, the Neath valley, Port Talbot and Maesteg, now face an economic reckoning with far too little urgency from this Government in return.

This is personal for many of us from south Wales. My grandfather worked at the blast furnaces at the Port Talbot steelworks, and it gave him the opportunity, as it did many others, to set up his own business—in his case, a waste management company. That is what is really at risk now, and that is what is really withering away in south Wales. It is not just the jobs on the steelworks floor, but the entire network of small businesses, tradespeople and suppliers that rely on the steel industry’s presence in our communities. We know that for every steelworker made redundant, up to three or four local jobs are at risk of disappearing. The message from Westminster has been clear: when crisis hits in Wales, it is tolerated; when it hits elsewhere, it becomes a national emergency.

We cannot go on like this. Steel is strategic, it is critical to our national resilience, and it matters just as much in south Wales as anywhere else. This Government’s failure to act swiftly in Wales, to consult with workers and to invest in a serious and just transition has undermined confidence and left people in Port Talbot, Llanwern, Shotton and many others across Wales feeling abandoned.

Some 2,800 jobs were lost at the blast furnaces alone, and many of those workers say they have simply been left behind. We have heard the Prime Minister say over the past few days that he wants to take control of steel. Why did he not say that when Welsh jobs were on the line? Why was Port Talbot not worth fighting for in the same way?

We need a proper UK-wide industrial strategy—one that recognises the vital role of Welsh steel in our national economy and, most importantly, one that treats workers in every part of the UK with the same respect, urgency and seriousness. The steelworking communities of Wales have not forgotten the silence that met their cries for help, and they will not accept a future in which their communities are left behind.

Clive Jones asked about whether the pension funds were safe and whether any assets had been transferred to any offshore business:

A potential tragedy is unfolding for many people in the Scunthorpe area, not just those at the steelworks, but people in the wider community who work in the supply chain, their customers and workers in the local economy, and the family and friends of those working at the steelworks. Well over 35,000 families in this country could be affected—nearly a whole parliamentary constituency. Trump’s steel tariffs will hurt the UK steel industry. Trump supporters in this House in the two shades of the blue team are strangely silent on the impact of his unnecessary tariffs. Has anyone heard them condemn Trump’s tariffs? No. The Liberal Democrats believe the Government should stand strong against Trump’s 25% tariff.

The relationship between the Jingye company and the Government has clearly broken down, which is why the Secretary of State is taking wide-ranging powers for himself. As it appears that the Bill will be passed today, I have two questions for him. Can he confirm that the pension fund of employees and former employees is not in deficit, that all company contributions are up to date, and that the assets of the scheme have not been transferred to the holding company or any offshore business; and if they have been, will he commence measures to get them back? Can he also confirm that ownership of the assets of the business, such as plant, land and buildings, have not been transferred to any holding company or offshore business?

* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings