I remind the House that the ballot for the election of Select Committee Chairs is currently taking place in Committee Room 15. It will close at 4 pm.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the improved deal that this Labour Government have secured for the workers of Tata Steel, specifically as it relates to its plant in Port Talbot. As well as setting out the details of this improved deal, I am also announcing today our ambition for a new UK-wide steel strategy—one that equips our steelmaking industry with the right support not just to adapt but to thrive in the new green economy. But before I do so, I want to address the situation we have inherited.

Since becoming Secretary of State two months ago, I have had to respond to a series of challenges, not just with the steel industry but in shipping—such as at Harland & Wolff—and in other areas where the previous Government had simply ceased to make decisions and decided to leave them for us to deal with. That was a dereliction of duty and it has left the steel industry in particular in an extremely perilous position. The previous Government had been promising a plan for the steel industry for years. With what I am able to announce today—with the signing of a legally binding deal that enables Tata to order its electric arc furnace as part of a significantly improved package—this Government have made more progress in two months than they made over the previous Parliament. But if we had started these negotiations even a year ago—never mind years ago as they had the opportunity to do—I have no doubt that we would have secured an even better deal for the community.

So I start with an apology to the people of Port Talbot, because they were let down by the previous Government. While this deal is much improved, I acknowledge that it falls short of what would be my ideal. I have, however, been to Port Talbot several times and met the workforce there, along with the reps and the generations of families who have literally forged Port Talbot as we know it. That is why, when Tata first announced that it would be closing the blast furnaces, resulting in some 2,800 job losses, I knew that the workforce deserved so much better. I warned my predecessor not to proceed with what they had negotiated. Why? Because I was confident that the Government could secure a better deal: a better deal for Tata’s workers and a better deal for the people of Port Talbot. And I am able to announce today that this Government have secured that better deal, but I reiterate that if we had had the opportunity that the previous Government had over so many years we could have done more.

The key features are as follows. First, we have agreed a process with Tata to assess investment opportunities for new, additional capabilities that will deliver more secure, long-term jobs than the deal we inherited. This is on top of the plans for the instalment of the electric arc furnace. We have agreed a process with Tata to take this forward, and I will report back to the House on that progress. But this is the most important element, so I am announcing the deal now, rather than after the process is complete, because for Tata to secure the build slot for the electric arc furnace, that element needs to be sorted now. Further delays would put the whole project at risk and could lead to a much worse outcome.

Secondly, in every conversation I have had with Tata’s directors, I have stressed the need to avoid compulsory redundancies wherever possible. I have asked them to channel their efforts instead into job matching and retraining so that the steelworkers of Port Talbot, who have dedicated so much to the industry in the past, can now help shape its future as they will be able to transition and move within the business. As well as that, Tata is agreeing to offer a comprehensive training programme for any employee as an alternative for those at risk of compulsory redundancy. This would be on full pay for one month, then £27,000 a year per employee for 11 months. Tata will fund all those costs. Employees will be able to choose from recognised qualifications to develop sought-after skills that will be in high demand in the local economy now and long into the future. We know, too, that Tata expects that during the construction of the electric arc furnace at least 500 new jobs could be created, which will tap into the local labour market wherever possible.

Thirdly, where we cannot secure new jobs or training, working closely with the unions we have helped to secure improved terms on redundancies. Tata’s employees are now able to express an interest in the most generous voluntary redundancy package the company has ever offered for a restructuring of this size. Employees will now be paid 2.8 weeks of earnings for each year of service up to a maximum of 25 years. At the same time, we are ensuring that there is a minimum redundancy payment—£15,000 pro rata—and a retention payment of £5,000 for employees leaving the business because of these closures. Over 2,000 members of staff have expressed an interest in voluntary redundancy who will be eligible on these terms.

Fourthly, as part of the deal the company will also be releasing 385 acres of its site for sale or transfer. This is valuable real estate which will help bring in more companies and more employers not just from the steel sector but from a whole host of other industries too, helping to diversify the workforce at Port Talbot.

While Conservative Members told us that there was no alternative to the original proposal, we knew that there was, and we have bargained hard for it. And we are putting in watertight conditions within our grant funding agreement for job guarantees to claw back investment if these jobs do not materialise. For example, there is now an improved grant repayment of £40,000 for every job that is not retained post transformation. This money will be repaid directly to the Government and is a powerful incentive for Tata to deliver the 5,000 UK jobs target.

But our ambition for steel is so much bigger and broader than one single company: it is about the whole sector. The UK has always been a proud steelmaking nation, with a rich heritage stretching back to the industrial revolution. From cars to cranes to ships and scaffolding, British steel has been, and is still, used the world over, embodying our industrial might and innovation. Yet for years steel has been a neglected industry in this country. Crude steel production has declined by more than 50% in the last 10 years. Indeed, some proclaimed the industry’s decline would be inevitable in the 21st century—that it was somehow a sunset industry—but those people are wrong: we on this side of the House have never believed that decline is inevitable and while the industry faces challenges today we want to do everything we can to ensure that it can adapt and grow tomorrow.

That is why I am pleased to announce that we will introduce our new steel strategy. As hon. Members know, our manifesto included plans to make available £2.5 billion for steel, on top of the £500 million transformation of Port Talbot. Our intention is to increase our UK capabilities, something the previous Government never attempted, so that we can create a more vibrant and competitive steel sector in the UK.

As part of our steel strategy, this Government will look seriously at options to improve steel capabilities across the supply chain, including in primary steelmaking. We are clear that we cannot prioritise short-term subsidies over long-term jobs, which is why, with the help of independent experts, we will review the viability of technologies for production of primary steel, possibly including direct reduced iron.

Steel is essential to delivering on our net zero goals and building the next generation of green infrastructure, and I know that Labour Members are passionate about that. That is why, under our steel strategy, we intend to use the Procurement Act 2023 to drive economic growth and account for social value in the things that the Government buy and the projects we commission. Work is already under way to increase the role of steel as we build our manufacturing base.

We recognise that, for far too long, Britain’s energy-intensive industries, including the steel sector, have been held back by high electricity costs. More often than not, this has made the UK less attractive to international investors, but we will take action on that. Our clean energy mission will ensure that we are no longer exposed to the kinds of gas price shocks that we have seen in recent years, and that will help British businesses to compete and win in the global market. In support of that ambition, we are working with like-minded nations to tackle global trade distortions, including through our chairing of the global forum on steel excess capacity this year.

Our steel strategy will be developed and delivered in partnership with the steel sector and trade unions, and it will work in lockstep with the Government’s industrial strategy, which will set out our ambition to ramp up investment, strengthen our supply chains and create more well-paid jobs in the places where they are needed most. In order to drive forward our partnership on the steel strategy, I will shortly meet industry experts and interested parties for discussion on the industry’s future. We intend to publish the steel strategy in the spring of next year.

The Government care about steel and the communities it supports, and recognise steel’s fundamental importance to the economy. Supporting steel in this country is about being involved in the detail and shepherding individual plants into the future while protecting the people in them, but it is also about providing a direction of travel, an inspiration for investment and a cause for confidence, so that the sector can play its part in the next 10 years and beyond.

We are not naive about the scale of the challenge before us. Although the situation is still challenging, this is a better deal for Port Talbot than was on the table, and it is the maximum improvement we could make in two months. It represents a better destination and a better transition to the bright future that steel will have under this Government. I commend the statement to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. I wish I could say that I am surprised by any of its content, but the media and the press have, of course, been relentlessly briefed on it over the last couple of days.

It is also no surprise that, once again, Labour is presiding over the demise of our steel sector. Output fell by 47% under the last Labour Government, and 56% of jobs were lost. Today’s deal means that 100% of output will go at Port Talbot. An electric arc furnace will take five years at best to get up and running; some suggest that it will be eight to nine years before a single new job is created, if we see any new jobs at all. As the statement says, this is a transition, but it is a heartbreaking transition for thousands of people—a transition from being in work to being out of work. In his discussions with Tata, why did the Secretary of State not take steps to ensure that the blast furnace will not be closed before the new electric arc furnace opens? Is this not the New Labour playbook—scrap jobs, scrap production and become reliant on higher-polluting countries for imports? That is not what I call decarbonisation. I must say, I feel a little sorry for the Secretary of State, who has been dispatched here to announce these spending decisions just a day after Labour’s day of shame on winter fuel cuts for pensioners.

In government, the Conservatives provided a grant of £500 million towards the £1.25 billion invested by Tata Steel, one of the largest support packages in the government’s history. At the time of the last Government’s announcement, that support was expected to save at least 5,000 jobs in the company. We worked with the Welsh Government and Tata Steel to establish a dedicated transition board to support affected employees and the local economy, backed by £100 million in total. Will the Secretary of State provide an update on any of those job projections?

Today’s announcement is notable for the absence of any reassurance or plans for the thousands of steelworkers in Scunthorpe who may not have jobs by Christmas. Equally notable is the Government’s failure, once again, to provide any detail on the domestic production of virgin steel. The Secretary of State says that we will have a steel strategy in the spring, but thousands of jobs, along with production capacity, have been scrapped today.

It was no surprise that last week, during the urgent question on steel, four times, the Minister for Industry failed to commit to safeguarding the future of virgin steel production in this country. I am sure that the Secretary of State does not need reminding that if he allows the Scunthorpe works to close, too, we will be the only G7 country unable to produce virgin steel. That leaves us open and vulnerable to cheap foreign imports, particularly from China. To his credit, he has always argued against offshoring our steel industry. He conceded once that it would be a “fundamental political mistake”. What conversations has he had with the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Defence about the impact of the Government’s new steel policy on our national security and ability to deliver infrastructure? Will he assure the House that he is doing everything in his power to ensure that we do not lose virgin steel manufacturing in the United Kingdom?

For the benefit of new colleagues, the Government, when in opposition, were committed to £28 billion a year of borrowing to fund their decarbonisation plans—a price tag that has magically disappeared, although the target has not. The Secretary of State made promises about that to the steel industry, but where are those promises now? Where is that money? Is he still battling the Chancellor? We know that Labour’s unions are quite successful in squeezing money from the Treasury, so maybe he can send them to stand up to the Chancellor if he is having problems.

The Government have our support in ensuring that the future of steelmaking in this country is sustainable. That goes beyond Tata and South Wales. Only in Labour’s world can the word “improved” mean fewer jobs and higher-polluting imports. When he returns to the Dispatch Box, I hope the Secretary of State will do better for UK steelmaking.

I have been a Member of Parliament for 14 years, in which I have seen some interesting political events, but I do not think I have ever heard a contribution with such brass neck. That is quite something, because there is quite a menu to choose from.

Let me explain what I was doing during polling week, in the lead up to 4 July. Parliament was not sitting, and I was shadow Secretary of State. I was going between key seats, as would be expected, negotiating with unions, Tata, my colleagues in the Welsh Government and every relevant body to prevent action that would have resulted in the entire closure of the Port Talbot works on polling day. It was as though the Government had already gone; they were not on the pitch. The first thing I had to do, before I even became Secretary of State, was ensure that there was something there to save, because it would have gone under the Conservative party. [Interruption.] Conservative Members really need to listen, because my contributions are factually accurate, and I will help them to understand the real situation.

The point of the new investment is to save jobs. There will be better terms for the people who are unable to get the new jobs, including better cushioning during their retraining for entry into the rest of the economy. I have explained why it is a better deal, as I hope the shadow Minister has seen. He mentioned media reports; they have not come from my Department, but I appreciate that there were lots of interested parties. The unions and the Welsh Labour Government recognise that this is a better deal. I hope that the Conservative party recognises, on taking a step back from the statement, why the deal will make such a difference.

The shadow Minister mentioned virgin steel. Let me talk about my frustration about that. He will understand that the two blast furnace sites, Scunthorpe and Port Talbot, lose a great deal of money every day. The managers are so fed up with the lack of action under the last Government that they have put timescales on their closure. The simple truth is that I do not have the timeframe that was available to the Conservative party. Moreover, when it comes to Scunthorpe, I do not yet have the carbon capture infrastructure in place that will be necessary for the ideal solution. I would love to be a position to look at the hybrid solution that the shadow Minister put forward—keeping the blast furnaces open while we bring the electric arc furnaces online—but all the time that could have been used to work on that was during the Conservative Government, and they did not do that work. There are therefore far fewer options available to us, and the situation is far more challenging.

Since I became Secretary of State, I have had many meetings with the UK management about Scunthorpe, and have had three meetings, I believe, with Mr Li, the principal shareholder. I also met him when I was shadow Secretary of State. We have been clear that we want a transition in Scunthorpe, and want to put up Government money alongside what the company may offer, but that has to be part of a transition to the future. The workforce and the route that is offered to them has to be part of that.

Even if we are successful in doing that, my frustration is that the options available are very difficult for the area. The solution I would ideally deliver, which could have been delivered by the Conservatives in those 14 long years, is not available. When Conservative Members leave the Chamber today, I hope they reflect on the mistakes they made, their lack of action, the legacy they bequeathed us and, fundamentally, the improvements we have been able to make in such a short time.

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

I am not yet Chair of the Committee, Mr Speaker, but fingers crossed. I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. I hope the whole House will recognise that what he has brought us today is not a set of sound bites but a strategy. In the long term, that strategy will benefit from a stronger cross-party consensus, so I hope that it can be the subject of a future Select Committee inquiry.

The Secretary of State puts his finger on the key issue: to safeguard the future of the steel industry, we need to de-risk the demand for steel in this country. What reassurance can he give the House about how we will use procurement and, crucially, the creation of a bigger offshore wind industry in this country to drive demand that will keep the furnaces going at Port Talbot and elsewhere? This country pioneered steelmaking; now we need to reinvent its future.

Order. May I say to Members, especially senior Members, that when they speak facing the opposite direction from where I am sitting, I cannot hear what they say? Please, speak towards the Chair. That is how we keep neutrality working as well.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are not just seeking to deliver new, improved transition deals for the key sites, but want to improve the overall business and investor environment for steel in the UK. I believe that can be done. The kind of investments in core capacities that we are thinking about could be very successful in the United Kingdom. Obviously, two months is insufficient for the due diligence that is required on some of the elaborate and considered business cases necessary, but the process is about delivering that. We can turn this into an extremely positive story for UK steel.

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party.

Steelmaking is of vital strategic importance to the UK. We need it to build the crucial infrastructure necessary to generate sustainable growth and safeguard our national security. The neglect of the steel industry in recent years is just another part of the previous Government’s disastrous legacy.

Today’s announcement is a welcome sign of change. The steps the Government have outlined to help protect jobs and, crucially, to develop a steel strategy are long overdue. We need to finally move on from a patchwork of last-minute rescues to a long-term plan that will set the industry on a sustainable footing. This is true of the steel industry and across our economy. We desperately need a real industrial strategy that works in tandem with this plan for steel.

Will the Secretary of State assure us that his steel strategy will be fully aligned with a wider industrial strategy, and will take a view on steel’s importance to our economy and society as a whole? Will it aim to balance the need for infrastructure, national security and net zero commitments? Will he assure us that he will bring the strategy to this House by spring next year for scrutiny and debate, so that the industry can finally move on with certainty?

I very much welcome the hon. Member’s words and her recognition of the improvements that we have made with this deal. Fundamentally, we have recognised the need for a better business environment, moving away from relatively short-term responses to that much better, more secure long-term framework. She will understand that the significant increase in investment that this new Government are willing to make can make a substantial difference. However, the emphasis must be on long-term investments for the future, so that we can secure those long-term secure jobs. There are several different ways that we can do that. I absolutely agree that our method should be aligned with the industrial strategy, and we will be able to make some announcements on that in the near future, leading up to the launch of the steel strategy next year.

I call the other potential Chair of the Select Committee.

That is incredibly gracious of you, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.] I think your words were heard across the Chamber.

May I welcome the Secretary of State to his place, and underline the importance of his commitment and the strength of his negotiation? I add my voice to those who talk about the importance of public procurement, but may I draw his attention to the carbon border adjustment mechanism? As I understand it, we have a disadvantage in this area because of how the mechanism was established in the UK. It is due to be introduced on 1 January 2027, which is later than in the EU, clearly disadvantaging our UK producers. Will he update the House on what he plans to do in that area?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and to you, Mr Speaker, for your very skilful introduction. He is right to talk about that wider business environment, and specifically asks about the carbon border adjustment mechanism. We have inherited this situation of the UK being out of line with the EU. Obviously, because our carbon prices are lower, there is a potential carbon barrier to UK exports to the single market. I can tell him that we are looking at that. The carbon border adjustment mechanism is a key part of a wider policy environment that must deliver decarbonisation, which is not deindustrialisation. We must recognise that the current policy environment is not doing that in the way that any of us would want.

I listened to the statement from the Secretary of State with interest. Will he specifically say, first, when the strategy will be published and brought to this House? Secondly, what level of Government investment will be behind the strategy? Thirdly, what assurances can he give to steelworkers across England—at Port Talbot and Scunthorpe in particular—that their jobs will not be put at risk because of steel being dumped in the UK from China?

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for her questions. We will see the strategy in spring next year and the resources behind it, including the existing Government allocation for Port Talbot and the new money that the Government will put in. It is a £3 billion clean steel fund, so it is a significant investment. Obviously, I want a certain amount of return from that. I want to work with private sector partners. The kind of capital expenditure that is involved in the transition to green steel requires very significant partners who can deliver. It is not just a question of the Government doing this alone, and I think hon. Members recognise that. Steel safeguards are important. The right hon. Lady will know that steel is a significant part of the existing Trade Remedies Authority protections, many of which relate to China, but not exclusively so, and we keep them under regular review.

I thank my right hon. Friend for today’s announcement and for reminding us of the role that steel plays in our green transition. He has done more in two months than the Conservatives did in 14 years. Many of my constituents in Monmouthshire, especially in Caldicot and Chepstow, work in the steel supply chain and in steel. Does he recognise that his announcement today has ramifications for the whole of south Wales?

I thank my hon. Friend very much for her question. Let me say again that I wish that we were in a position to do even more, but I can tell hon. Members that this is the maximum improvement that was possible within two months. I know that in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s people are seeking more than anything else a recognition that steel is not a sunset industry. It is vital to the future; it is not the case that it should be in inevitable decline in the UK. Indeed, we are an outlier in terms of the size of our steel industry among comparable G7 and OECD countries. This could be and should be a very positive story, and I am honestly confident that we can deliver that in future.

The right hon. Gentleman mentions procurement, and over countless years we have had statements and new strategies for steelmaking. Will he set out his plans to secure a long-term order book for steelmaking in this country, so that investors can make sure that they get value for money as well as the taxpayer? Equally, how will he endeavour to use the public purse to purchase British steel, while at the same time encouraging the export of British steel to other parts of the world?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question and very much agree with him. As the shadow Secretary of State, I avidly read the statistics that the Department published about UK content in domestic steel procurement. We must recognise that it is usually relatively high, but only in the sectors where we are producing particular grades of steel. Part of the strategy has to look at future demand, not just for what we already produce, but in terms of gaps and business opportunities. If we are improving the business environment, we need not just to help incumbent producers in the United Kingdom transition, but bring in new entrants, creating more competition in the market. I can see that there is significant demand in the market. It is the market that is driving the demand for green steel. I have no concerns about the future order book; it is the business environment taking advantage of that demand that this strategy needs to address.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for all his hard work in recent months. It is clear that the delays in the negotiations have had a very real cost. When I was visiting Port Talbot on Friday, what the workers and the management wanted to know was whether those delays had now come to an end. Can he reassure the House that we will do everything we can to make sure that the construction does now get going on the future of this plant?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for recently visiting the site to speak to management and the workforce. He is right about the understandable level of concern in the workforce. Obviously, that is often speculated on in the media, and there is a huge amount of interest in it. I made this statement today because of the need to proceed with part of the plan, and not to lose everything entirely. I also wanted to be able to answer questions such as his and to make it clear that the Government’s manifesto commitment to the steel transition fund forms part of a wider ambition, a coherent strategy, for the future of steel across every part of the UK.

The loss of virgin steel production in Wales is a serious economic blunder that will devastate the community of Port Talbot. Unions have previously called for additional investment of £683 million in Port Talbot to save jobs. Meanwhile, Germany has invested €1.3 billion in decarbonising steel in one region alone this year. Can the Secretary of State explain why he will not match the ambition of the workers here and Governments of other countries to save Welsh steel?

The levels of ambition and resource that we have as a new Government are actually greater than the figures that the hon. Lady has just given. To do the work that she describes requires a private sector partner. The Government cannot alone meet the capital expenditure needs. Indeed, to be successful it is better to work with a private sector partner to deliver that. Having a partner to retain virgin steel production is part of what the strategy will be able to address. If I had a partner willing to keep blast furnaces open, I would be very interested in that. However, I do not want to spend this very large sum of money in our clean steel fund on subsidising operating losses for one or two years, which would eat up most of that £3 billion and leave us with nothing at the end of it. I want to co-invest with the private sector for good, secure, long-term jobs, which are much in demand. She is right to say that other European countries have been way ahead of the UK in the past few years, but the level of ambition from this Government not only matches that among some of those European competitors but exceeds it.

What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the workforce and their unions about this improved deal?

The answer is a great many, as my hon. Friend will understand. I have always been conscious not just of the specific impact on the workforce at Port Talbot, but of the fact that some of the big industrial transitions of the past in the United Kingdom, in the north-east of England where I grew up, were not handled well. I think people recognise that. I thought that the previous Government’s levelling-up strategy was a recognition of the long-term damage that was done in the late ’80s and early ’90s by that transition. Getting that right, and showing the workforce that this is a Government who care, have always been paramount. I have been to Port Talbot several times. I last met the community reps a week ago, and was able to have frank conversations with them. In everything that I have said, and will continue to say, I recognise that we wish that we were in a position to do more, but within the parameters of what we had and where we almost were, in terms of the entire loss of the site, I am confident that this is the biggest improvement that was possible in two months. We will always work with them to ensure that we are getting everything that we can for the site.

The wholesale price of electricity in this country is already pretty much the highest in Europe, and it will probably get worse as we shift towards renewables, with the possibility of outages and intermittency. That means that electric arc furnaces will become more expensive. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that suppliers do not, perfectly legitimately, turn to China for its virgin steel, produced in dirty blast furnaces?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that this has long been a campaigning issue of mine. I have talked repeatedly about the relationship between decarbonisation and the potential for deindustrialisation, and the policy environment in this country not being fit for purpose to deliver that. On the wholesale electricity prices of energy-intensive industries, for most of the time under the previous Government the UK’s prices were wildly uncompetitive. There was some movement, as he knows, with the supercharger policy near the end. More can be done, and there is an even more exciting longer-term position that we could get to. He will have to wait for the Budget, and maybe the spending review, for some more detail on that, but this issue has to be an essential priority for the competitiveness of the UK. We have to recognise that a lot of the industries that we will transition to are very heavy users of electricity—not just clean steel, but for instance gigafactories. This will be a key tool in the future that we have to do better on than we have in the past 14 years.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this improved deal. I know how hard he has worked over many years, not just in the short term before and since the election, as he referred to in his answer to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). On procurement, will there be a presumption in favour of using British-produced steel both in nationally significant projects in green energy and in defence? That would be in stark contrast to what the previous Government did, in particular with the fleet solid support contract.

I thank my hon. Friend for all his support during our years in opposition, when we tackled many of these issues. He asks about procurement. Of course, anything that we do as a Government will be consistent with international trade rules and our commitment to open markets and multilateralism. There is a legitimate way in which social value can be considered in Government procurement. Given the value and quality of what we produce in the UK, I am very confident in procurement playing a bigger part in the future of the steel industry. On defence and the blast furnaces, he will know that neither Scunthorpe nor Port Talbot plays a direct role in some of the key Ministry of Defence contracts. Sheffield Forgemasters plays more of a role in that. There are more capacities and capabilities that we can look to as a country for opportunities in the future.

The truth is—and the country needs to know this—that the thousands of jobs and the loss of the blast furnaces announced today is because of both main parties’ obsession with net zero. The reality is that blast furnaces have been losing money because of high energy costs caused by very expensive renewable energy, but we are where we are. In the event that Tata does not build the electric arc furnaces that are being promised, will the Secretary of State guarantee the House that the taxpayers’ money will be returned to the taxpayer?

I am afraid that the hon. Member is misinformed as to what this is about. The issue is that these sites lose approximately £1 million a day. They have done so for a long time, and the owners are fed up and want to know that there will be a plan for the future. The role of the Government is to make that future better than it would otherwise be were we not on the pitch delivering it. There are issues around the competitive cost of industrial electricity in the UK, but they are not the issues that he says.

On the guarantee that he seeks, he will have heard my statement. The contractual terms of the grant funding arrangement include that clawback capacity, not just for the overall project but even down to the number of jobs retained. Those are the kind of job guarantees that I want in the public-private relationship going forward.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to introducing a new steel strategy. Steel is not a sunset industry; it is critical for our economy and national security. I know that he is a friend of Teesside. Will he give us some clarity on the status of discussions around investment in steel in Teesside at the moment?

My hon. Friend is right to make that point. We cannot say enough that this is not a sunset industry; it should have a bright future. We can get this right. On the negotiations, my hon. Friend will know what I have already said about the conversations with British Steel. It is a very challenging issue. We have made it clear that the Government are there to play a part, and we obviously want that to be part of a transition. We have made that as clear as can be. As soon as I have further information, I will update the House.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As a supporter of industrial strategy, I welcome the idea of a steel strategy in the future, but I will ask a couple of specific questions on the detail. First, is it the Government’s policy that the domestic manufacture of primary steel is a strategic industry that must be protected and guaranteed? What do the Government intend to do about the sourcing, either domestically or through the import of coking coal? Earlier, he seemed to suggest that he would not intervene to support British Steel in Scunthorpe. Can he confirm that, if we lose that capacity, we may go five, six or seven years without steel manufacture in this country?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for industrial strategy. I have said many times that there should be, as there is in many countries, cross-party agreement—perhaps not on the detail, but on the premise and what we are trying to achieve. He asks about domestic manufacture and the blast furnaces remaining open. That is of course my preference, but I need a business partner—a company that is willing to do that. I do not think that it would be reasonable to spend the very considerable sum of money that we have pledged on subsidising short-term losses rather than on the ability to deliver new things. He also asks about coking coal. Obviously, that depends on the long-term future of the blast furnaces. That is what they need.

In relation to British Steel, I want a transition plan. My comments earlier were about my frustration that, for me, the ideal deal in a place like Scunthorpe would have been to build the future alongside operating what we currently have. That was available to the last Government; they did not proceed with it. The kind of infrastructure needed for the long-term future of operating blast furnaces would require carbon capture and storage. It was cancelled many times by the previous Government, and is not there. I am heavily constrained in my options, but I am still doing everything that I can to get a deal for the workforce, and to ensure that there is a business there that commands the support of its customers to transition in the future.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on announcing the steel strategy after such a short period in office. The industry has been crying out for it for a very long time. The Conservative party failed the industry by not producing it. Will he say a bit more about what he hopes the strategy can achieve for the steel industry throughout the UK, in particular in Motherwell in my constituency?

There are future opportunities, particularly from renewables, some of the steels that will be necessary in the automotive sector, and some of the new technologies that are being taken up around other European countries. There is particular excitement about direct reduced iron. How we deliver the business environment, hopefully with new and existing partners, is absolutely key. I hope that that is what the strategy will deliver.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which shows the priority that the Government are giving steel, in direct contrast with the previous Government, who had absolutely no industrial strategy—it was a real cheek of the shadow Minister to suggest otherwise earlier. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the plans for Llanwern? Its dedicated workforce has been through hard times recently. With support, Llanwern can turn into the finest automotive finishing line in the world. Will he commit to developing that and to safeguarding the future of the plant?

I say again that had the election not been called, a statement such as this would not have been not possible. It would have passed us by; that was the situation that we faced. My hon. Friend rightly talks with pride about her constituents at Llanwern, which is an incredibly important and successful part of the industrial supply chain in the United Kingdom. I will ensure, as part of the transition, that the downstream functions, which are so valuable and praised, and which carry such respect in the industry, are protected, and that the transition plan does not disrupt the business model, which is, again, proof of the sector’s success and of future opportunities.

I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement, and I welcome his endeavours, which I think we all recognise, to create firm foundations for the sector as it moves forward. I also recognise his commitment to Harland & Wolff, to which he referred. That is indeed great news, not just for workers but for the construction sector in Northern Ireland. However, the steel industry faces the problem of affordable energy, which he mentioned in his introduction. Will he safeguard the long-term sustainability of that and other industries by immediately addressing the energy price crisis and implementing the necessary long-term green energy fixes?

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for his support for what we have announced. Having a competitive environment is an absolutely key issue. I am already having extensive conversations with the Chancellor and key Cabinet colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, about the way to do that not just in the short term but in the longer term, when we will clearly have a significant renewable energy base. There are a lot of exciting options available, including in how we use some of that capacity in areas of low consumer demand. I can tell him that that is a key priority for getting this right in future.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the deal that he has announced. As a former British trade commissioner to India, I assure him that it is a better deal from a better and more serious Government than the Conservative Government. Will he tell the House what direct conversations he has had with Tata about future investments in the UK?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although I know that the workforce has, at times, been frustrated by Tata’s plans, I understand why Tata itself was frustrated by the previous Government and how long it took to do the deal. In opposition, I had extensive conversations with Tata to build the kind of relationship that has been necessary to deliver something like this. I met executive chair Chandra at Davos and then flew to Mumbai, as colleagues may remember, to build that relationship. I also saw him yesterday, alongside the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, because he was in the United Kingdom. We are continuing those conversations and working with all partners to deliver the kind of opportunities that we think will be available in the UK in future.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the death of Patrick Finucane.

Patrick Finucane was a human rights lawyer. On 12 February 1989, he was brutally murdered in his home in north Belfast by loyalist paramilitary group the Ulster Defence Association, in front of his wife, Geraldine, who was wounded, and his three children, one of whom is now the hon. Member for Belfast North (John Finucane). From that day onwards, Mrs Finucane and her family have campaigned tirelessly in search of answers about the killing of their loved one.

In 1990 an inquest was opened and closed on the same day with an open verdict. Subsequently, a number of investigations and reviews were conducted. In 2001, following the collapse of power sharing, the UK and Irish Governments agreed at Weston Park to establish public inquiries into a number of troubles-related cases, if recommended by an international judge. Judge Peter Cory was appointed to conduct a review of each case, and in 2004 he recommended that the UK Government hold public inquiries into four deaths: those of Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill, Billy Wright and Patrick Finucane. Judge Cory also recommended that the Irish Government establish a tribunal of inquiry into the deaths of former Royal Ulster Constabulary officers Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen. Inquiries were promptly established in all those cases, with one exception: the death of Mr Finucane.

Meanwhile, in 2003, the third investigation by Sir John Stevens into alleged collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries had concluded that there had been state collusion in Mr Finucane’s killing. That investigation was followed by the conviction in 2004 of one of those responsible, Ken Barrett. With criminal proceedings concluded, the then Northern Ireland Secretary, Paul Murphy, made a statement to Parliament setting out the Government’s commitment to establishing an inquiry, but despite a number of attempts, the Government were unable to reach agreement with the Finucane family on arrangements for one.

In 2011, the coalition Government decided against an inquiry. Instead, a review of what had happened, led by Sir Desmond de Silva QC, was established. Sir Desmond concluded that he was left

“in no doubt that agents of the state were involved in carrying out serious violations of human rights up to and including murder.”

The publication of his findings in 2012 led the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, to make from this Dispatch Box an unprecedented apology to the Finucane family on behalf of the British Government, citing the

“shocking levels of state collusion”—[Official Report, 12 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 296.]

in this case.

In 2019, the Supreme Court found that all the previous investigations had been insufficient to enable the state to discharge its obligations under article 2 of the European convention on human rights. The Court identified a number of deficiencies in the state’s compliance with article 2. In particular, Sir Desmond’s review did not have the power to compel the attendance of witnesses; those who met Sir Desmond were not subject to testing as to the accuracy of their evidence; and a potentially critical witness was excused from attendance. In November 2020, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced that he would not establish a public inquiry at that time, pending the outcome of continuing investigations, but that decision was quashed by the Northern Ireland High Court in December 2022.

This Government take our human rights obligations, and our responsibilities towards victims and survivors of the troubles, extremely seriously. The plain fact is that, two decades on, the commitment made by the Government to establish an inquiry into the death of Mr Finucane—first in the agreement with the Irish Government, and then to this House—remains unfulfilled. It is for that exceptional reason that I have decided to establish an independent inquiry into the death of Patrick Finucane, under the Inquiries Act 2005.

I have, of course, met Mrs Finucane and her family—first on 25 July to hear their views, and again yesterday to inform them of my decision. Mrs Finucane asked the Government to set up a public inquiry under the 2005 Act, and, as I have just told the House, the Government have now agreed to do that, in line with the 2019 Supreme Court ruling and the Court of Appeal judgment of July this year.

In making this decision, I have, as is required, considered the likely costs and impact on the public finances. It is the Government’s expectation that the inquiry will, while doing everything that is required to discharge the state’s human rights obligations, avoid unnecessary costs, given all the previous reviews and investigations and the large amount of information and material that is already in the public domain. Indeed, in the most recent High Court proceedings, the judge suggested that an inquiry could

“build on the significant investigative foundations which are already in place”.

As part of my decision-making process, I also considered whether to refer the case to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. The commission has powers comparable to those provided by the 2005 Act to compel witnesses and to secure the disclosure of relevant documents by state bodies—powers identified by the Supreme Court as being crucial for the Government to discharge their human rights obligations.

The commission was found, in separate proceedings in February this year, by the High Court to be sufficiently independent and capable of conducting article 2-compliant investigations, and while I am committed to considering measures to further strengthen the commission, I have every confidence in its ability, under the leadership of Sir Declan Morgan, to find answers for survivors and families. However, given the unique circumstances of the case, and the solemn commitment made by the Government in 2001 and again in 2004, the only appropriate way forward is to establish a public inquiry.

Many of us in this House remember the savage brutality of the troubles—a truly terrible time in our history—and we must never forget that most of the deaths and injuries were the responsibility of paramilitaries, including the Ulster Defence Association, the Provisional IRA and others. We should also always pay tribute to the work during that time of the armed forces, police and security services, the vast majority of whom served with distinction and honour, and so many of whom sacrificed their lives in protecting others.

It is very hard for any of us to understand fully the trauma of those who lost loved ones—sons and daughters, spouses and partners, fathers and mothers—and what they have been through. There is of course nothing that any of us can do to bring them back or erase the deep pain that was caused, but what we can do is seek transparency to help provide answers to families and work together for a better future for Northern Ireland, which has made so much progress since these terrible events. I hope that the inquiry will finally provide the information that the Finucane family has sought for so long.

The Government will seek to appoint a chair of the inquiry and establish its terms of reference as soon as possible, and I will update the House further. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for advance sight of it and his courtesy call this morning. I am particularly grateful to him for bringing it forward before recess. I know the deadline that the Court gave him was 27 September, so it was important that we had the chance to hear the Government’s position and ask questions before we rose for conference recess.

The murder of Patrick Finucane, like so many murders during the troubles, was a dreadful act of violence that must not be forgotten. The Opposition stand by the findings of the 2012 de Silva report that while there was no evidence of an overarching state conspiracy in the case of his murder, there were shocking levels of collusion—something for which the then Prime Minister, now Lord Cameron, rightly apologised to the House in that year. I fully appreciate the Secretary of State’s desire to bring the matter to a close after a very long period, and I know that a full public inquiry will do it, but I wish to ask serious questions about the decision to choose a full public inquiry over one of the alternatives that he mentioned.

It is clear that the Finucane family, who have suffered so much, are owed a further and deeper investigation. That much was made clear by the Supreme Court’s finding in February 2019, when it noted that the de Silva report had not been able to compel witnesses or take its evidence in public. In other words, it had not been article 2 compliant. However, as the Secretary of State said, this year the Belfast High Court concluded that the ICRIR was capable of conducting an article 2-compliant investigation and was sufficiently independent to do so.

My first question to the Secretary of State is: given that the ICRIR has powers to compel witnesses and take evidence in public, what is it that a full public inquiry will be able to do that the ICRIR cannot? This is important because the ICRIR is already fully staffed and active and could begin work quickly, whereas the establishment of a full public inquiry and the building of that team will inevitably take time. Given the opportunity for further delay, I ask him to set out for the House what steps he is taking to ensure that the public inquiry is conducted as quickly as possible. Can he give an undertaking to have appointed a chair and agreed terms of reference before the end of the year, say? In his statement, he referred to the High Court proceedings, where the judge suggested that an inquiry could

“build on the significant investigative foundations which are already in place”.

I hope that will mean that we can have terms of reference relatively fast.

Similarly, in the Secretary of State’s conversations with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, has the Secretary of State set an expectation of time and costs? We know from previous public inquiries that unless these things are considered early on, the inquiries can take a long time and cost a great deal.

On the issue of the ICRIR itself, I am pleased to hear that the commission has the Secretary of State’s confidence. We agree that it is showing itself to be an excellent and effective body with a highly capable chair. I note that it was also the creation of the previous Government. It was created, as he knows, by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which his Government have committed to repeal. Indeed, the House will appreciate that a large part of that legislation is given over to the creation of the ICRIR. I ask him to reassure us that he has no intention of repealing that part of the Act.

Returning to the public inquiry that has just been announced, there is one other issue on which we should seek clarity today. In his statement, the Secretary of State referred to the “unique circumstances” of the case. It is important that we understand exactly what those unique circumstances are, because it is important that the Government do not unwittingly set a precedent for many more public inquiries. As a veteran of the Cabinet Office, I became acutely aware of a danger that public inquiries could cease to be the exception and become the rule. Given that there are thought to be thousands of murders from the troubles still unsolved, there is a risk of setting a precedent that would make inquiries the rule. There will be those who ask that if there is to be a full public inquiry in one murder case, why not in another, or in many others? To avoid that happening if this case is, as the Secretary of State says, genuinely unique, the Government have a responsibility to set out why that is. We must not risk turning the system of public inquiries into a more routine process. I am sure that he will feel the same way, and I ask him to make that commitment. I thank him for his statement.

I am grateful to the Opposition spokesperson for his opening remarks, and I will respond directly to his very legitimate questions.

What is unique about this case—I apologise for the length of the opening statement but I thought it was really important to take the House through the history—is the commitment given on two previous occasions by the Government of our country that there would be a public inquiry. To come to his last question, it sets no precedent, but there were exceptional circumstances relating to this case that led me to take this decision.

I will of course, especially as the Finucane family have been waiting 35 years, seek to establish the inquiry as quickly as possible. We have to appoint a judge. The judge then has to be consulted by myself about the terms of reference. The time it takes will depend on how the inquiry unfolds. I am acutely conscious of cost—the hon. Gentleman’s point was extremely fair—which is why it seems to me that, given all the material and information that is already out there, what the inquiry can most usefully do is not seek to go over all of that, but interrogate the information, material and witnesses as necessary. As the Supreme Court made clear, that is what has been missing that led it to conclude that this was not article 2 compliant.

We have a commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, and we will begin that process shortly, finally laying to rest the conditional immunity. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Government have said about civil cases and inquests. On the independent commission, while I shadowed this role in Opposition and since taking up the office of Secretary of State, I have been very clear that while we want to return to the principles of the Stormont House agreement, there needs to be information recovery and there needs to be continuing investigation. It is true that the agreement envisaged two separate bodies, but those functions are combined in the ICRIR. As I have been very frank in saying, now that body has been established and all its staff appointed, I really do not see the point in abolishing it only to recreate something that looks very much like what we have today. It is a pragmatic decision that I have taken. I also made clear in my statement that I am committed to considering further steps to strengthen the ICRIR’s independence and its powers as necessary. I hope that provides the hon. Gentleman with the reassurance he was looking for.

On 17 January 1989, Conservative Minister Douglas Hogg claimed in Parliament that solicitors in Northern Ireland were

“unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 January 1989; c. 508.]

Seamus Mallon MP responded that he had

“no doubt that there are lawyers walking the streets or driving on the roads of the North of Ireland who have become targets for assassins’ bullets as a result of the statement that has been made tonight.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 January 1989; c. 519.]

Three weeks later, lawyer Pat Finucane was shot 14 times and murdered in his own house in front of his wife and three children.

I commend Geraldine Finucane and the Finucane family, including of course the hon. Member for Belfast North (John Finucane), on their tireless campaigning to get to this point, and I thank the Secretary of State for finally doing the right thing on behalf of the British Government in announcing this inquiry. When does he envisage the inquiry beginning?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his appreciative words. He alludes to a very, very unhappy history in this and many other cases. I do take the point made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) about all the pain and suffering that all families have experienced, but in this particular case, I have decided that this inquiry is the right thing to do.

The murder of Patrick Finucane remains a shocking crime even now, 35 years on, and even in the context of so many tragedies that took place during the troubles in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the thoughts of everyone in the House are with the family of Patrick Finucane, as mine are. They have suffered for so long waiting for answers after that terrible day, and I hope that the independent inquiry announced by the Secretary of State will go some way towards bringing at least some closure for the family after all these decades.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and his announcement of the independent inquiry, but does he agree that there is a need to acknowledge the wider need for truth and justice in Northern Ireland? In contrast to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), I ask him whether he will come to the House with a wider statement on repealing the legacy and reconciliation Act, which of course the Liberal Democrats opposed in the last Parliament, and talk more widely about the role of legacy in Northern Ireland, which of course is so important. Can I also ask the Secretary of State to clarify the ability of this inquiry to compel documents and witnesses, and like others, can I ask about the timescales of the inquiry? I am sure he agrees that Patrick Finucane’s family have waited long enough already.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the inquiry, and I am very happy to give him and all Members of the House an assurance that as we develop our proposals, I am in the process of talking to lots of people about how to give effect to the “repeal and replace” commitment that was in the Gracious Speech. I will, of course, come back to the House with proposals in due course and keep it informed. The honest answer to the question he and other Members have put is that I want to get on with this inquiry as soon as possible, but I have certain duties that I have to undertake in order to give effect to it. However, after this long period of time, let us get going with this inquiry as soon as we possibly can.

The brutal murder of Pat Finucane in front of his wife and children was mired in collusion before the killing, as it has been in the many long years since. Today is about the tenacity of the Finucane family, including my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Belfast North (John Finucane), but it will have resonance for many other victims of the troubles whose needs have, for many years, been put behind the needs of the victim-makers who want the truth to remain covered up. I am so glad that the truth may now finally out for this family.

As the Secretary of State knows, many other families have faced obstruction from state and non-state actors in their quest for truth and a reconciled future. I am thinking of families such as those of the victims of Freddie Scappaticci, the family of Sean Brown, and many others. Will the Secretary of State commit to the same swiftness and determination in removing the barriers that have been placed in front of those families in their quest for truth?

The hon. Member has alluded to a number of cases. Of course, we are awaiting the final report on Operation Kenova, the interim report having been published early this year. I undertake and make a commitment, as any holder of this office would do, to carefully consider each individual case and reach what I think is a sensible way forward. Collectively, there is a huge task for all of us in playing our part in enabling families to find out answers that they have not yet had.

In that context, I welcome the ICRIR’s announcement on Monday this week that it has had 85 inquiries and has already agreed to start looking into eight cases. That is significant, because there are those who say that no one should go anywhere near the ICRIR because of its origins and parentage, if I may use that phrase. However, having taken the decision that the ICRIR will remain in place, it does have powers. It has the ability to get information and to question people, and it has said that it wants to develop what it calls a system of “enhanced inquisitorial proceedings”, which is public hearings. Of course, hearings in public are really important to many families, because they want the truth to come out and to be able to ask questions, but, crucially, for justice to be seen to be done.

Can I press the Secretary of State further on the issue of other families? Months ago, under the previous Government, those families saw a Bill—which I did not support—repressing and restricting their ability to have inquests. Today, they see a full public inquiry being announced for another family. Will the Secretary of State update the House on what personal engagement he will have with those families? Inevitably, they are going to say, “We have got a public inquiry in this case, but we are being asked to wait in the queue for this legacy Bill inquest body.” They will think something is not right about that.

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who was such a distinguished holder of the office I now hold, for raising that point. Over the past three weeks, I have met a number of those families whose inquests were brought to an end—some because of the 1 May portcullis that came down and brought an end to the inquests; others because the coroners had said, “We don’t think we can take this any further because of issues to do with confidential material.” I undertake to the House to reach a decision in those cases and inform the families as quickly as possible.

As I have said before, one of the reasons why we made our commitment in relation to the legacy Act is this: what is it about this part of our United Kingdom that means citizens should be denied the right to bring a civil case—which is what the Act did—and to have an inquest? That cannot be right and proper, which is why this Government have made that commitment.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I am sure all colleagues give thanks that Northern Ireland and its people now live in peace. Can the Secretary of State tell us how he thinks this announcement will help contribute to continued and meaningful reconciliation in Northern Ireland?

For one family, this now provides a process, but I am very conscious that many other families will say, “What about us?” That is why we need to find the most effective means to get to the truth, and that is part of the reason, as I have explained, why I decided that we would not get rid of the commission. I have met Sir Declan Morgan a number of times, and I have confidence in his ability to do his work. We have to find practical means of providing answers to all of those families, so that they feel their story can be told and they can get what they have been looking for. The point I wish to emphasise again to the House is that this particular case is exceptional for the reasons I set out in my statement.

One of the things the Secretary of State did not outline in his statement was that the Supreme Court considered whether it was appropriate not to proceed with a public inquiry, and that the Supreme Court agreed, provided that an investigation could satisfy article 2 compliance. He has said today that the ICRIR not only has his trust and confidence, but has the ability to perform such tasks for other families. So when he rightly says that families across Northern Ireland will ask the question, “What about us?”, so too do I, because the most exceptional circumstance about this is the exceptionality of treatment. Over 1,200 families still have neither truth nor justice, and if the plans enacted last year continue, they will never get justice. I would ask him, in repudiating the ICRIR and suggesting today that it is not an appropriate mechanism for the Finucane family—and I do not besmirch their grief or their quest for truth and justice—but it is appropriate for every other, how can he honestly look victims in the eye and say that there is not a hierarchy?

There should not be a hierarchy, and the right hon. Gentleman and I shared reservations with—indeed opposition to—the legacy Act because it did cut off lots of routes to justice. In the end, I think families should have the opportunity to avail themselves of inquests and civil cases, but the commission is now in existence. The honest answer to his question is that in this particular case, and this does not apply to any of the others, the Government of our country made a commitment twice—once at Weston Park, and secondly by the then Secretary of State—to establish a public inquiry. I think it is right and proper, the Government in the past having made that commitment, that we honour it, and that is the answer I would give him.

The state collusion in the murder of a human rights lawyer in front of his wife and children is an incredibly serious matter that chills us all, so I very much welcome the decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on a public inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane. It is a decision to be welcomed, and it is a good signal from our new Government that they are meeting their commitments and obligations. However, this very welcome announcement must of course be followed by the action that the Secretary of State has rightly outlined. Will my right hon. Friend therefore give further reassurance to this House that all necessary resources will be provided, so that there can be truth and justice in this incredibly important matter?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for what he has said. Having made this decision, I think all of us would recognise the need to get on with it as swiftly as possible.

This is a bad decision today. It will cause anger and further hurt for the many hundreds of families who have not had justice for the murder of their loved ones, including the mass murder of Protestant workmen at Kingsmill, the blowing up of Protestant workmen at Teebane and the horrendous murder of worshippers at Tullyvallen, among others. I think the Secretary of State has to explain to the House why, after tens of millions of pounds have been spent on inquiries and reviews of this case, he still believes it is necessary to acquiesce in the demands of the family by having another inquiry. How does he justify it to those hundreds of families that no such resources will be put in place to seek out the truth about the murders of their family members? Given the record of inquiries of this nature being a golden goose for barristers and solicitors in Northern Ireland, how is he going to ensure that the costs are capped?

The right hon. Member recounts some of the terrible murders, and I have myself met, as I am sure others have, the only survivor of the Kingsmill massacre and heard at first hand the truly chilling story of what happened on that day. First, considerable resources are now being given to the independent commission, and it is important to recognise that, because it has a huge task on its hands. I hope others will come forward to the commission to avail themselves of what it can offer.

Secondly, and I have said this to other Members in answering their questions, in this particular case a commitment was made twice, and I think it is important that we honour it. We also have to recognise in this particular case that the Court held in 2019 that all of the investigations—I accept what the right hon. Member said about them and their extent, and of course they involved the expenditure of public moneys—did not meet the requirements of article 2. Faced with that, and faced with the quashing at the end of 2022 of the decision of a previous Secretary of State not to call an inquiry pending further investigations, it has fallen to me to look at this and to decide how we are going to go forward. I have set out my reasons as clearly as I can hope to do.

Will the Secretary of State clarify that he has now ended any opportunity for the families and loved ones who still held out hope that there would be an inquiry into the death and murder of their loved ones at the hands of terrorists across Northern Ireland? Is he saying that the only opportunity for them is to go to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery—an organisation that does not have the full support of the communities of Northern Ireland and does not have the support of and has been queried by many of the families who have lost loved ones? Can I just seek clarity from the Secretary of State that he is saying to those families that their only opportunity for truth, recovery and justice is to go through this organisation, and that he will not engage with them about a further inquiry?