Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Sentamu (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Monday, 29 June 2026. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HL) on Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.


Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

My Lords, Amendment 2 would replace

“includes (but is not limited to)”

with the word “means” so that we knew what we were describing. The worry is that leaving it as it is could create a public interest so large that there was a mission creep that I do not think should be in the Bill, which is trying to nationalise steel. We need to be slightly more economical in the words we are using, so that we need not fear that on another day, if another public interest was being taken into account, the definition would prove far too loose. The word “means” does the job: we know exactly what one is talking about, and it lists the three elements. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, wanted to include two other areas but, for me, limiting it to those three objects seems to be where we should stop. The word “means” would stop mission creep.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
857 c886 
Session
2026-27
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Compensation Cost effectiveness Competition British Steel Enforcement Industrial disputes Iron and steel Economic growth Ministerial powers Manufacturing industries Public interest Property transfer Parliamentary scrutiny Nationalisation Foreign investment in UK Shares Valuation Trade competitiveness Sunset clauses
Legislation
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill 2026-27
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on hansard.parliament.uk