
British Steel on a razor's edge: inside Starmer's Scunthorpe rescue mission
By next weekend, a cargo ship carrying more than 50,000 tonnes of coking coal from Australia will dock at Immingham. In other circumstances, its arrival would be unremarkable. But the moment Navios Alegria reaches the Lincolnshire port will be the culmination of the government's high-wire act to keep the UK's last steel furnaces running.
MPs were recalled from their Easter recess last Saturday to pass emergency legislation handing the government control over British Steel, which operates Britain's last two blast furnaces capable of producing steel from scratch using coke and iron ore.
Long-running talks between the government and Jingye Group, the Chinese conglomerate that owns the Scunthorpe plant, broke down 10 days ago after executives declined an offer of £500m to keep the furnaces running. Ministers became convinced that Jingye bosses were determined to shut them down come what may.
Senior figures in Downing Street and Whitehall believe the company's decisions were motivated by a desire in Beijing to make the UK a dumping ground for Chinese steel exports, particularly in the context of Donald Trump's tariffs.
'It became clear that when they saw the writing was on the wall they tried to shut down our steelmaking,' one senior official told colleagues. Another senior government source told the Guardian: 'They decided to shut it down because China needs to dump its steel somewhere.' Jingye has argued the plant is no longer financially sustainable and running a loss of £700,000 a day.
Keir Starmer asked to receive hourly updates between his engagements on Thursday of last week after the talks with Jingye broke down. In the early hours of Friday, he was informed that ownership of the cargo on Navios Alegria had been transferred from British Steel to Jingye – a sign that the Chinese company intended to sell off the coal needed to keep the blast furnace running. Unions have claimed that Jingye had turned away the Amstel Tiger, a second cargo ship that was carrying coking coal to Scunthorpe and had set off from the US.
The prime minister convened cabinet at 9am on Friday and told ministers they would gather again for a 15-minute meeting at lunchtime. Aides say he was concerned about the prospect of steelworkers being caught between the government and Jingye's orders, and that he asked the attorney general, Richard Hermer, to look at how workers defying Jingye bosses could be protected in that scenario. He also resolved to recall parliament on Saturday and travel to Scunthorpe in a show of support.
The other overriding concern in No 10 was ensuring the delivery of the Navios Alegria's cargo. Starmer was convinced the move to transfer ownership of it away from British Steel was illegal. While government lawyers pored over the details, aides drew up a plan to divert the vessel – which was travelling up the coast of Liberia and was due to refuel in Spain – to Gibraltar, on the basis that if it docked at a British port its cargo could be seized.
This gambit, which would have required some diplomatic manoeuvring with Spanish authorities, was nicknamed 'Steelback' by aides – a reference to the nickname of the British army regiment that received battle honours during the siege of Gibraltar in 1779.
Officials also drew up contingency plans to source coking coal from other suppliers such as commodity traders and Tata Steel. By Saturday morning when Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, was addressing the Commons everything hung in the balance.
'Commodities traders were telling us they couldn't get there on time,' a senior No 10 source said. 'No one knew what would happen with the Liberian vessel [Navios Alegria]. We were on edge.' There were suggestions that the navy would need to be deployed to escort shipments of coking coal to Immingham.
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
A breakthrough came on Saturday afternoon in the unlikely form of a legal wheeze. Government lawyers overseen by Hermer concluded that the person who had signed away the Navios Alegria cargo did not have the relevant permissions to do so. This discovery – which meant the cargo legally belonged to British Steel and would therefore soon be under the government's control – shifted the mood in Downing Street. Starmer was in Scunthorpe when he was given the news. At 6pm, the government's emergency bill received royal assent and gave ministers powers to exercise control over British Steel.
On Tuesday, shipments of coking coal and iron ore from the US completed their comparatively uneventful journey to Immingham after the government settled the payment to deliver the supplies needed to keep the furnaces running.
Downing Street figures say they took the decisions they did because amid an escalating global trade war and European rearmament, producing steel in the UK is a matter of national security. Officials believe the crisis may lead to a reassessment of what is deemed critical national infrastructure. Steel is not, but unions have called for a rethink in the wake of Trump's 25% tariffs on steel imports.
Serious questions remain over the future of the Scunthorpe plant and the beleaguered British steel industry. The two blast furnaces at Scunthorpe are nearing the end of their lives. The cleaner electric arc furnaces that are slated to replace them would not produce steel from scratch, but instead smelt existing steel scrap. The government is due to publish a steel strategy within weeks, including a verdict on whether the UK needs to produce virgin steel.
In the meantime, the government is looking for private sector investment to avoid the need to nationalise British Steel in the longer term – a route the Conservatives were keen to avoid in 2019 when Jingye was the only bidder. If no others emerge this year, ministers will face mounting questions about the cost to the taxpayer.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


BreakingNews.ie
22 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Greta Thunberg says she was kidnapped by Israeli forces in international waters
Greta Thunberg on Tuesday accused Israel of kidnapping her and her fellow pro-Palestinian activists in international waters, saying she declined to sign a document stating she entered the country illegally prior to being deported. Speaking in the arrivals section of Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport after being deported from Israel, the Swedish activist said she and her team had broken no laws, and called for the immediate release of the activists still in Israel. Advertisement "I was very clear in my testimony that we were kidnapped on international waters and brought against our own will into Israel," she said. She laughed off criticism from US president Donald Trump, who had described her as an angry person, saying: "I think the world needs a lot more young angry women to be honest, especially with everything going on right now." World Greta Thunberg deported from Israel after Gaza-bou... Read More Thunberg (22) arrived in Paris a day after the Israeli navy prevented her and a group of fellow pro-Palestinian activists from sailing to Gaza. Israeli forces boarded the charity vessel as it neared Gaza early on Monday, trying to break through a years-old naval blockade of the coastal enclave, and seized the 12-strong crew, including Thunberg. Thunberg denied her mission to deliver aid to Gaza by breaking through a years-old naval blockade of the coastal enclave was a PR stunt, saying a previous effort in a larger boat was ended after the vessel was bombed. She said she was now in desperate need of a shower and sleep. She admitted it was unclear where she would be heading next, telling reporters it could be Sweden.


The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
What's behind Keir Starmer's decision to back nuclear power?
Keir Starmer has committed the UK to its first significant stake in a new nuclear power plant since the 1980s. The decision to invest almost £18bn of taxpayer money into the Sizewell C nuclear power plant in Suffolk was welcomed by Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, as the beginning of a 'golden age' of nuclear investment that would be critical to the government's net zero goals. The government said on Tuesday it would commit £14.2bn to the project, including the £2.7bn it earmarked for Sizewell C in the autumn budget. It has already committed £3.6bn to Sizewell over the past two years. Britain's nuclear renaissance will also include spending about £2.5bn of taxpayer money building some of Europe's first small modular reactors (SMR), after the government gave the green light to plans for Rolls-Royce to build three in the UK by the early 2030s. For critics, the technology's high costs and lengthy construction time have always eclipsed the benefits of abundant low-carbon electricity, given Hinkley Point C's current price tag of up to £35bn and repeated delays. There are also persistent concerns over the safety of nuclear reactors, and the disposal of nuclear waste. But questions over whether countries can meet the growing demand for electricity without fossil fuels, and avoid blackouts, mean many governments now believe nuclear represents a price worth paying. Megawatt for megawatt, nuclear power is far more expensive than most renewable energy technologies. But, unlike wind and solar farms, nuclear reactors do not need investment in battery backup technologies to provide a steady, reliable source of low-carbon power. The guaranteed electricity price offered to Hinkley Point C was initially £92 per megawatt-hour but this will fall to £89.50/MWh with the go-ahead for Sizwell C, under the terms of the government's contract with French state-owned EDF. By contrast, the guaranteed price for offshore windfarms which were successful in last year's subsidy auction was just under £59 per megawatt-hour. 'The upfront cost [of nuclear] is undoubtedly high,' said Dr Iain Staffell, an associate professor at Imperial College London. '£14bn could fund around 10 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind versus just 3.2 GW of nuclear. But, these reactors will run day and night, especially valuable when the wind is not blowing.' Prof Mark Wenman, also at Imperial College London, added that the costs needed to be balanced against the fact that these reactors 'will produce low carbon electricity for 80 or possibly 100 years, 24/7, providing around a 10th of the current UK electricity needs'. 'Once paid for, nuclear reactors produce the cheapest electricity of any kind, so this investment should be seen as future-proofing the UK electricity system,' Wenman said. Experts believe that powering a country on 100% renewable energy is technically possible. But there is clear evidence that grid systems running predominantly on wind and solar power can be more expensive in the long run, and could be at higher risk of blackouts. This is because renewable energy cannot help to keep the electrical frequency of the grid stable at around 50Hz in the same way that the spinning turbines of a power plants have done in the past by creating inertia. The answer, according to the government's National Energy System Operator (Neso), is to encourage renewables to become the backbone of the energy system while keeping alternatives such as nuclear, biomass and gas to provide backup for when renewable resources are low and grid stability is needed. The government's independent climate advisers agree. The Climate Change Committee recommends that the UK's nuclear capacity doubles by 2050 because while it is 'relatively expensive on a levelised cost basis' it can provide 'valuable zero-carbon generation at scale'. Britain risks losing the benefits offered by nuclear plants by shutting its ageing nuclear reactors faster than it can build new ones – leaving a gap in the UK's supplies of low-carbon electricity at a time when demand for clean energy is growing. The UK's five existing nuclear power reactors generated 14% of the country's electricity last year – down from the industry's late-1990s peak when 18 nuclear reactors provided more than a quarter of Britain's power. Four of these plants are due to close before the end of the decade, even with plans to extend their lifetimes, while only one nuclear power plant is under construction. The Hinkley Point C project in Somerset was originally due to begin generating electricity by 2017 but it has been delayed until the early 2030s. Driving Britain's nuclear renaissance is the tech industry's appetite for nuclear power. Starmer unveiled plans for a once-in-a-generation nuclear expansion earlier this year alongside an open invitation to tech companies such as Google, Meta and Amazon to invest in AI datacentres in Britain, which could be powered by small modular reactors. This is because world's biggest tech companies are investing in extending the life of nuclear plants and building small modular reactors to help meet the enormous power demands of their datacentres. This growing demand is expected to accelerate with the adoption of artificial intelligence. Earlier this month Meta struck a deal to keep one nuclear reactor of a US utility company in Illinois operating for an extra 20 years to help supply the company's datacentres with low-carbon power. It follows a similar deal from Google to supply its datacentres with nuclear power from half-dozen small reactors built by a California utility company. In addition, Microsoft has paid for the restart the Three Mile Island nuclear plant, the site of the most serious nuclear accident and radiation leak in US history. 'They are very keen to get the datacentres in and they're very alive to the fact that the power is a big issue,' Starmer said.


The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Los Angeles braces for arrival of more troops in ‘crisis of Trump's own making'
Los Angeles on Tuesday was bracing for new troop arrivals after a quieter night following four days of protests over federal immigration raids on local businesses. The initial deployment of 300 national guard troops is expected to quickly expand to the full 4,000 that has been authorized by Donald Trump, with an additional 700 marines who could begin arriving on Tuesday. The US Northern Command, or Northcom, said in a statement on Monday that marines from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division 'will seamlessly integrate' with forces 'who are protecting federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area'. Northcom added that the forces had been trained in de-escalation, crowd control and standing rules for the use of force – and that approximately 1,700 soldiers from the 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, a California national guard unit, were already in the greater Los Angeles area. The national guard and marine detachments were being dispatched to the US's second largest city over the objections of California's governor, Gavin Newsom. And the state is now suing the Trump administration, claiming the president illegally federalized the national guard to confront protesters in Los Angeles. California's attorney general, Rob Bonta, said on Monday that the state's sovereignty was 'trampled'. But Trump countered that his administration had 'no choice' but to send in troops. The national guard are not believed to be involved in crowd control but assigned to protect federal property. 'If I didn't 'SEND IN THE TROOPS' to Los Angeles the last three nights, that once beautiful and great city would be burning to the ground right now, much like 25,000 houses burned to the ground in L.A. do to an incompetent Governor and Mayor' Trump said in a Truth Social post early on Tuesday, referring to the response to wildfires that devastated parts of Los Angeles county late last year. Trump later deleted that post and published another with the correct spelling of 'due'. But the deployment is strongly opposed by California Democrats. Senator Alex Padilla told the Associated Press on Tuesday that protests against the US's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) as well as the subsequent legal showdown between his state and the government 'is absolutely a crisis of Trump's own making'. 'There are a lot of people who are passionate about speaking up for fundamental rights and respecting due process, but the deployment of national guard only serves to escalate tensions and the situation,' Padilla said. 'It's exactly what Donald Trump wanted to do.' Padilla slammed the deployment as 'counterproductive' and said the Los Angeles sheriff's department had not been advised of the federalization of the national guard. He said his office had pressed the Pentagon for a justification, and 'as far as we're told, the Department of Defense isn't sure what the mission is here'. 'Los Angeles is no stranger to demonstrations and protests and rallies and marches,' Padilla added. 'Local law enforcement knows how to handle this and has a rapport with the community and community leaders to be able to allow for that.' The defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, signaled support on his personal X account for deploying troops to California. 'Due to increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings, approximately 700 active-duty US Marines from Camp Pendleton are being deployed to Los Angeles to restore order,' he posted on X. 'We have an obligation to defend federal law enforcement officers – even if Gavin Newsom will not.' Hegseth will testify on Tuesday along with the joint chiefs of staff chair, Gen Dan Caine, before the House appropriations subcommittee on defense. The meeting is focused on the nearly $1tn budget request for 2026, but Democrats are likely to question the defence secretary on the controversial move to deploy national guard and marines to LA.