debates/debates2025-05-01a conversation_12
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-05-01)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-05-01a conversation_12

Paul Davies:Pubs and restaurants are part of a thriving hospitality sector in my constituency. What initiatives is the Department  planning to support such small businesses and boost economic growth in Colne Valley? Of course, I invite the Minister to visit my constituency and experience our fantastic hospitality sector. \p Gareth Thomas: The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) might not invite Ministers to his constituency, but I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s invitation—diary permitting, I would be delighted to come along. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced our plans for a business growth service, which should make it easier for UK businesses to get Government advice and support in order to grow. I hope that will make a real difference. In addition, we are considering what else we can do to unlock better access to finance for small businesses such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Andrew Griffith: The Secretary of State says that all the funding required for the nationalisation of British Steel will come out of existing budgets. We have seen his Department’s budget—we had an estimates day debate in the House not long ago—and there was no unallocated pot. Could he be a little more specific about exactly which budget the money is coming from? \p Jonathan Reynolds: 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. 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. \p Andrew Griffith: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. I think it is widely agreed that the cost of nationalising British Steel could run into the billions. Is he really saying that he plans to raid the previously allocated £2.5 billion green steel fund from the national wealth fund, and how is he doing that given that the national wealth fund is operationally independent? Is not the truth that, sooner or later, this will have to come from his department’s budget at the expense of financial support for the automotive sector, exporters and hard-working trade negotiators? \p Jonathan Reynolds: 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 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.