As set out in the Written Ministerial Statement on 16 July 2026, the Government is putting in place a new Board of Directors for British Steel Limited, who will bring extensive commercial and industrial expertise to support the company and management in stabilising operations and moving the firm on from its current poor commercial position. The Board will be responsible for developing a plan to transform British Steel into a commercially and environmentally sustainable steelmaking enterprise. It will be the responsibility of the Board to determine if and when any strategic plans should be published.

We have been in discussions since 2023 with Jingye about how to deliver a sustainable future for British Steel and since April 2025 regarding Jingye’s proposal to sell British Steel to HMG. Since we tabled our proposal earlier this year we met a number of times to discuss a pathway to resolution. We agreed with Jingye that our discussions should remain confidential.

The Department engages regularly with steel producers, steel-using businesses, trade unions and other stakeholders on issues affecting the UK steel sector, including the Steel Act and the usage of its powers. Ministers and officials also have regular engagements, meetings and roundtables with downstream users.

The Schedule of the transfer Regulations (S.I. 2026/832) laid on 16th July defines the property, rights and liabilities excluded from the transfer, meaning they remain the property, rights and liabilities of the transferor. These include but are not limited to any liabilities owed to, or relating to liabilities owed to undertakings within the same corporate group as the transferor. Certain unsecured liabilities owed to third parties are also excluded. The Government has acknowledged the duty to bring forward compensation scheme regulations to allow an independent valuer to determine whether or not compensation is payable.

The transfer brought certain property, rights and liabilities into a company wholly owned by the Secretary of State, subject to specified exclusions, and these are listed in Schedule 1 to the British Steel Limited Property Transfer Regulations 2026 (S.I. 2026/832).

The financial position of the company wholly owned by the Secretary of State--renamed by the transfer regulations as British Steel Ltd.--following nationalisation will be disclosed in accordance with relevant accounting standards, and through the 2026-27 Annual Report and Accounts process.

The Government undertook proportionate due diligence before acquisition, drawing on information available through engagement with British Steel during the intervention under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025. This included assessment of potential environmental liabilities, consideration of employee-related obligations and potential liabilities, and general business liabilities. The extent of some liabilities will depend on the future operational plans for the site. The Government's assessment, based on the relevant factors including cost considerations, is that it is necessary in the public interest to nationalise British Steel Limited.

HMRC’s published statistics on the cost of tax reliefs^[1] provide an estimate of the cost of the VAT Zero Rate for domestic passenger transport of £5.8 billion in 2025-26. This includes other public transport such as buses; a breakdown for rail fares is not available.

^[1] Tax reliefs - GOV.UK

Qualifying locomotives for passenger and freight trains, and rail maintenance vehicles can use red diesel for propulsion. The Treasury does not hold information on the cost of rebated fuel used specifically by train operators.

To assist the Noble Lord, I can point to the most relevant published statistics available. HMRC’s non-structural tax reliefs publication sets out the overall estimated Exchequer cost of the rebate for red diesel (and kerosene used as fuel in an engine), while DESNZ’s Digest of UK Energy Statistics provides data on petroleum products consumed by the rail sector.

Although these publications do not provide a separate official estimate for train operators, they provide the best available published information on the overall cost of the relief and the scale of rail-sector fuel use.

In their annual report on rail industry finance in the UK, the Office of Rail and Road set out a total government support figure of £21.6 billion in financial year 2024-25.

The Office of Rail and Road sets out Network Rail's expenditure for the financial year 2024-25. Network Rail does not invest capital in train operating companies.

Of course we want the growth of our own industry, and we want it to have the means to support our UK Armed Forces; that is really important. But our industry and our defence also need exports, so I do not see this as one versus the other. Growing our own industries is important to supply our own Armed Forces, but working with partners to develop exports helps collective defence, and we should pursue that as well.

Energy supplies used in certain forms of transport are exempt from the main rate of Climate Change Levy (CCL). This includes electricity used to electrify rail lines, light a railway carriage transporting passengers and light the cab interior of a freight train transporting goods.

Information on the estimated cost of tax reliefs, including CCL exemptions, is published on GOV.UK and can be found in the annual statistics on tax reliefs. However, it is not possible to provide the annual tax cost of exempting rail operators from CCL, as HMRC does not collect this information.

The noble Lord is right that there may be many advances in productivity and efficiency across all the public sector and, indeed, in the private sector. We are setting up the AI Economics Institute to make sure we are well informed with the best advice on the implications for the labour market and the fiscal environment. This is a rapidly developing technology. We are drawing on the best advice so that we can be best prepared to support the UK in this transformative potential.

I suspect, without being an expert on this, that one reason is that for most of the year we do not need to use them. Therefore, I think it is not unreasonable of government, certainly with respect to public buildings, to take a proportionate approach to the changes that should be made in those buildings—the adaptations which certainly will be needed in homes, schools, hospitals and elsewhere—and to provide sensible and proportionate advice, alongside considerable capital investment in order to enable that to happen.

That is probably a cost for the water companies to assess.

We had extensive discussion and advice on this issue while we were debating the relevant legislation. We are confident that obligations under the relevant treaties on non-proliferation and under the Pelindaba treaty can be met as a result of that decision and that legislation.

Unlike previous Governments, we are not setting a net migration target. We are trying to ensure—and our success in this was proved in my initial Answer to my noble friend—that we manage migration in an effective way. We have seen a massive drop in the net migration figure from when the noble Lord’s Government were in power. Setting a target would achieve exactly what Conservative Prime Ministers have done throughout the last 14 years: set a target but introduce no policy objectives to achieve it, and fail to take into account the needs of the British people and the British economy.

I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we need to keep that base. That is why, coming into government, we built upon the 11 rounds of negotiations the previous Conservative Government had commenced, because we take the view that what is of most importance is securing that vital base for the defence and national security interests of this country. Like the last Government, we took the view that this was best secured through agreement. It is not simply out of adherence to what is an advisory, non-binding opinion of the International Court of Justice. That is simply one piece in a jigsaw, the larger picture of which is all about the national security interests of this country.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will confirm if you ask him that yes, he did pause the negotiations, but he restarted them because he could see that this was a necessary process.

My Lords, on a personal level I tend to look at X as little as possible, which is why I was a little out of the loop yesterday given all the news that was breaking on X. But, having said that, there is a genuine thing here about how we communicate with people. There is a reason why we use these tools. In fact, given the extreme heat that we are currently experiencing, both the Met Office and UKHSA are using X, among other platforms, for engagement. It is making sure that it is about engagement and not just one-way, although on a personal level, when I was an MP, I found Meta platforms much easier to engage with the electorate on.