⚒️ Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill: Business of the House

Commons Chamber

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

Parliament convened urgently on a Saturday to pass the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill, aimed at saving thousands of jobs by keeping British Steel’s furnaces operational. The Leader of the House thanked the staff and Speaker for facilitating the session, while the opposition criticized the government for last-minute actions and poor negotiation. The Bill’s passage was rushed, with all stages to be completed by 2 pm, followed by consideration of any Lords’ amendments. Despite the rushed process, the motion to expedite the Bill’s passage was agreed upon, highlighting the urgency and significance of maintaining the steel industry.

Summary

  • Special Session Arrangements: The House of Commons was recalled for a special session to discuss the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill. The session was scheduled to be chaired by any member of the Panel of Chairs as needed, with the House set to adjourn until April 22 after proceedings.

  • Urgency and Schedule: The session aimed to progress the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill urgently, with Second Reading, Committee stage, Consideration, and Third Reading all scheduled to be concluded by 2 pm on the same day. The urgency was emphasized due to the need to maintain British Steel’s blast furnaces and save thousands of jobs.

  • Criticism from Opposition: Alex Burghart, speaking for the opposition, criticized the government for the handling of the situation. He claimed the government had been aware of the impending issues for months yet acted inadequately, only presenting the Bill 90 minutes before the session. He also criticized the government for what he perceived as a poorly negotiated deal.

  • Thanks and Cooperation: Both the Leader of the House, Lucy Powell, and the opposition expressed gratitude to the parliamentary staff for facilitating the special session at short notice. There was a call for all Members to work constructively on the passage of the Bill.

  • Next Steps: After the House’s proceedings, they awaited any message from the House of Lords related to the Bill before adjourning. The House of Lords was set to have a “take note” debate and consider all stages of the Bill on the same day.

Divisiveness

The session shows a moderate level of disagreement, primarily from the opposition expressed by Alex Burghart of the Conservative Party. The key points of contention are centered around the handling and timing of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill by the Government. Here are the examples of disagreement noted in the transcript:

  1. Critique of Government’s Handling: Alex Burghart criticizes the Government for what he perceives as mismanagement and lack of foresight, stating, “the Government have made a total pig’s breakfast of this whole arrangement.” This strong language indicates significant dissatisfaction with the Government’s approach to the issue.

  2. Lack of Timeliness: Burghart points out the lack of timeliness in presenting the Bill, noting that the Bill was only seen by the House 90 minutes before the sitting started. He finds this to be a “huge discourtesy to the House,” suggesting disagreement with the urgency and preparation of the legislative process.

  3. Negotiation Criticism: He further criticizes the Government’s negotiation skills, claiming they “make bad deals for Britain,” which directly challenges the Government’s competence in handling the steel industry crisis.

  4. Request for Apology: Burghart expresses hope that the Government will apologize for their handling of the situation, indicating a desire for acknowledgment of mishandling from the Government.

Despite these points of contention, the session does not escalate into a high level of conflict. The Leader of the House, Lucy Powell, maintains a cooperative tone, expressing gratitude and urging for constructive work on the Bill. The disagreement, while notable, is contained within a single speech and does not lead to further debate or disruption in the session. Therefore, the rating of 3 reflects a moderate level of disagreement that is significant but not pervasive throughout the session.