Sunday, 13 April 2025

Can UK afford to save British Steel – and can it afford not to? BBC

 

"Who was going to blink first?"


Laura Kuenssberg  1 day ago

Presenter, Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg@bbclaurak



A source involved in the fraught negotiations since the election over the future of British Steel told me that as time passed, and literally, coal to keep the furnaces burning started to run out, that was the question - was the government going to offer even more to the Chinese owners of British Steel, Jingye, or act itself?


On Saturday, the government is changing the law to answer that question.

Unless something truly weird happens, Parliament will vote to give Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, the power to tell British Steel what to do – in practice, buying coal to keep the fires burning, to keep the once mighty steel industry alive.



Even on Thursday he was offering taxpayers' cash to buy the raw materials to keep the furnaces alive as a sweetener for Jingye.


At one point in the talks, sources suggest they were asking for a billion-pound taxpayer bailout to keep the plant alive. But I'm told that price wouldn't have been accompanied by any guarantee that jobs would be saved, or the plant protected for good.


Taking control on Saturday does not do that. The Chinese owners will remain the shareholders, for now. But Labour's decision literally and metaphorically keeps the flames alive – the government hopes. And it commits taxpayers to start coughing up to save the steel industry – for how long, is a more complicated question.


The government says it has not ruled out nationalising British Steel, which employs 2,700 people

So what then? Theoretically, Jingye could "get their act together and take the company back", one insider suggests.


Talking to interested parties on Friday night, that seemed vanishingly unlikely.


The UK government has spent the last couple of weeks trying to tempt them to stay on board with huge inducements. That failed, so the chances of getting back involved seem pretty slim.



There is the possibility that another company wants to swoop in and rescue the business.


Again, don't hold your breath – the company has been losing money hand over fist, the blast furnaces are nearing the end of their useful life, and the cost of energy it gulps is enormous.

So in the current state, taking on the business as an offer? It's not that pretty.


 Remember Jingye were the only bidder last time round – when a Conservative source says, "there were no other bidders – the alternative was closure or nationalisation, and the Conservatives were never going to nationalise". So will Labour?


As of this weekend, that seems pretty likely. Remember the action in Parliament later does not mean nationalisation. But it's a necessary first step if that is what's going to happen.


You've probably heard ministers again and again say "all options are on the table" - that's their get out of jail card where they don't commit to anything in case their preferred option suddenly disappears. But as MPs gather to vote on the next steps, a journey towards nationalisation certainly feels like the direction.


Two different sources who have been part of the wider discussions tell me the prime minister has come to believe that taking British Steel back into public hands is what the government will have to do. There are practical and political reasons for why that might come to pass.


First, for the government to have a hope of achieving its aims - building infrastructure, spending more on defence at home, growing the economy and protecting jobs - it is logical to preserve a steel industry in this country.


That's not just because ministers are loathe to see good jobs disappear. But because in government, the capacity to make steel is an important part of what the UK needs to be able to do. If the plant closes, the UK would become the only G7 country without primary steel making capability.


That wasn't something the government was willing to tolerate. So if the private sector won't do it – enter the state. Although, it wouldn't be unfair to wonder why they have ended up making this decision at the last minute when the fuel for the furnaces is about to run out, given it was three weeks ago that the company sounded the alarm about possible closures.


Second, that requirement to act has become politically attractive because it fits into Sir Keir Starmer's more and more familiar script, that the new world order has changed – governments need to be more active and agile in protecting their own interests.


It follows, if, as Treasury Minister Darren Jones, told us last week, globalisation is over, then the UK has to be able to make the materials and products like steel that it really needs itself.


One source remarks: "Dragging the Tories to Parliament over the weekend to back the Labour government's plans to save British steel: I can finally see why people said government was worth it".


It is politics after all.


Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has blamed the government's "incompetence" for the last-minute recall, while Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said it was an opportunity to come up with "a serious plan" for domestic steel production.


Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said the government's plan was just a "short-term sticking plaster" and both he and the Green Party have called for public ownership as the only option.


It is worth remembering the problems in the steel industry didn't start with Donald Trump, or this government, or even Jingye. Steel was nationalised in 1967, then sold back into the private sector in 1988.


Frantic negotiations with government about jobs, bailouts, survival are familiar. But there is gathering momentum around nationalisation as the solution, in a way unthinkable not so long ago.


Hypothetical conversations started at the top of government a couple of months ago about the possibility, detailed work only in the last week or so. But there is a growing consensus - one source familiar with the situation even says, "nationalisation is inevitable and has been for some time".


But – "the hurdles are huge" – a source tells me. The most obvious obstacle? Cold hard cash, way beyond the initial price tag for raw materials to keep Scunthorpe going for a few more weeks.


In the long term, the blast furnaces are near the end of their life, the plant needs investment, massive investment, to make it safe and to have a proper future. One industry source told me modern electric furnaces could have a price tag as as much as £3bn each, and Scunthorpe might need two.


Energy costs for new or existing furnaces are enormous. In Number 10 and Number 11 there is an acknowledgement that the costs of energy for industry can be crippling. That could be another area where government is keen to act.


The government hasn't yet shared, or hasn't yet worked out, what the potential cost of taking on the plant in the long term might be. A Treasury source says it will have to be within the current plans for spending. And you don't need me to remind you again how tight Number 11 says money is, how tightly Chancellor Rachel Reeves wants to stick to her spending rules.


And yet – if a big ticket effective nationalisation is the political choice, and it runs to many billions? Let's see.


MPs voting later won't determine the entire future for British Steel. But it puts the government on a path to make real some of its rhetoric in recent weeks, as one figure put it – "neoliberalism is over. Ownership matters again - Labour needs to define Britain's place in this new, new world order".


But passing a law in a rush is one thing. Political excitement another. Sir Keir used to attract ire from the left of his own party for walking away from some of his previous beliefs in common ownership, nationalising vital industries. Embarking on an expensive and complicated adventure to preserve a struggling multi-billion pound industry was not meant to be part of the plan.


https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czx40yvzqk0o

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg17g39x41o


The Observer view on British Steel: saved for now, but for how long?

The UK’s last two remaining blast furnaces have hovered on the brink of shutting down over the past week. It has emerged that Jingye, the Chinese owner of Scunthorpe-based British Steel, was poised to refuse to buy further supplies of the coke and iron ore required to keep them running ...

 Story by Observer editorial 14h • 4 min read

... at which point it would not have been possible to restart them; effectively, a unilateral decision to put an end to Britain’s capacity to produce primary steel

In these circumstances, the government had no choice but to recall parliament for an emergency sitting to pass legislation to give business secretary Jonathan Reynolds the power to direct British Steel.

The British Steel site in Scunthorpe, owned by the Chinese conglomerate Jingye.
© Photograph: Ryan Jenkinson/Getty Images

The UK is starting from a low steel-producing base: it produced just 7.2m tonnes in 2021, compared with 13.9m tonnes in France, 24.4m tonnes in Italy and 40.1m tonnes in Germany. If British Steel were to shut its furnaces, this would leave the UK as the only G7 nation without primary steel-making capacity, with significant economic and security consequences. 

A range of industries rely on steel: construction, defence, transport, green energy. Without British-produced steel, global giant ArcelorMittal would attain what the defence thinktank Rusi has described as a “virtual monopoly” in the production of structural steel building frames for the UK market. Network Rail sources about 95% of its track from Scunthorpe. Parts of the defence industry are heavily reliant on British-produced steel; 90% of the steel used in Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers was produced by Tata Steel at Port Talbot, for example.

There would be significant risks if UK industry were to become wholly reliant on steel imports, in a world characterised by increasing instability and the trade protectionism of Donald Trump’s White House. Europe may be considered a reliable trading partner, but the steel tariffs imposed by the US, combined with pressures for increased defence capability as the US goes cold on Nato, means the UK may not be able to count on sufficient supply from our European allies.

So the government had to intervene in this way: to let the furnaces in Scunthorpe go out would have been not only to lose thousands of jobs, affecting the community, but to put Britain’s security at risk. 

The power to direct British Steel does not amount to nationalisation, but this seems an all-but-certain outcome, given the situation with Jingye. It could end up costing the British taxpayer dear, but the risks of not maintaining domestic primary steel production would be even more costly.

There has been a complete lack of strategy for nurturing competitive British companies and removing barriers to their growth

It is far from ideal that ministers have found themselves in this situation, and for that governments of both colours over decades bear responsibility. The history of British steel-making has been lurching from crisis to crisis: the Scunthorpe furnaces were sold by Tata Steel to the private equity fund Greybull Capital in 2016, which left just three years later. The only buyer on the market was Jingye, which Boris Johnson, the then prime minister, saw as a more palatable option than closure or nationalisation. 

No government has set out a long-term strategy for maintaining British primary steel-making capacity, including realistic plans for decarbonisation, given it is a huge polluter. While steel producers in France and Germany have been relatively protected from high wholesale energy costs through government intervention, UK producers have been paying up to 50% more for electricity, a huge input cost into steel-making, than their competitors from these countries; Conservative business secretaries never addressed this asymmetry. The last government could also have done more to increase the market for low-carbon steel through regulation. It is an all-too-common aspect of British industrial policy: a complete lack of long-term strategy for nurturing competitive British companies and removing barriers to their growth.

There is a risk that, without a broader strategy for British Steel, the government nationalises the Scunthorpe furnaces in a way that will drain billions of taxpayer funds but is not part of a sustainable strategy for the future of primary steel-making in the UK.

 That needs to be the priority once the immediate crisis is averted. But the business secretary needs to learn the broader lessons of this sorry saga for industrial policy across the board. 

The UK is in a precarious position economically: long-term structural issues including low productivity growth and business investment and stagnant living standards have been compounded by the pandemic, by the energy crisis and by the global instability created by Trump’s tariffs policy. Britain’s long-term growth potential has been harmed irrevocably through Brexit and the erection of significant trading barriers with our largest and closest trading bloc.

We are living in a world in which Britain has declining economic and diplomatic agency. It is more important than ever to limit our dependence on other countries, including China, for the production of materials of strategic importance. 

The government deserves praise for taking swift action to prevent its primary steel-making capacity from being shut down. But that’s the easy bit: the much more difficult question is whether it’s possible to improve the competitiveness of British Steel in the medium term, while decarbonising, in a way that ensures the future of steel-making in the UK without it being forever reliant on huge subsidies from the taxpayer.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/the-observer-view-on-british-steel-saved-for-now-but-for-how-long/ar-AA1CO1Em