Thousands of jobs at risk as British Steel consults unions over closure

Published

7 months ago

March 27, 2025

admin

Britain’s second-biggest steel producer is kicking off a consultation that could lead to the closure of its two blast furnaces and more than half of its workforce losing their jobs – a move that will pile pressure on the government to improve an offer of taxpayer aid to the company.

Sky News has learnt that British Steel was on Thursday morning in discussions with trade unions about a redundancy process that could result in between 2,000 and 2,500 employees being axed out of a workforce of 3,500.

One trade union source said that meetings were taking place on Thursday morning, with a public statement about plans to accelerate the closure of Scunthorpe’s two blast furnaces emerging soon after.

The company said the consultations related to the closure of the blast furnaces, steelmaking operations and a reduction of steel rolling mill capacity in Scunthorpe.

Money latest: Trump car tariffs condemned around the world

The launch of the redundancy consultation comes amid an impasse between Jingye Group, British Steel’s Chinese owner, over a government subsidy package to aid the company’s transition to greener steel production.

Sky News revealed on Wednesday that Jingye had this week rejected a £500m offer from the government.

Sarah Jones, the industry minister, told MPs that talks were continuing, while an urgent question is expected to be answered in the House of Commons on Thursday.

The £500m proposal – aimed at facilitating the Scunthorpe-based group’s transition to green steel production – follows years of talks aimed at salvaging the future of the UK’s second-biggest producer.

Its scale is equivalent to the sum awarded to the larger Tata Steel as part of a £1.25bn package finalised last year.

Whitehall sources said that Jingye’s business plan would involve a smaller number of jobs being cut if a switch to electric arc furnaces took place, with the redundancies also staggered over a longer period.

However, the Chinese group has argued that that transition would only be possible with a larger sum of government funding, they added.

In a statement sent to Sky News, the Community union’s general secretary, Roy Rickhuss, said: “This is a dark day for our steel industry and for our country.

“We urge Jingye and the UK Government to get back around the table to resume negotiations before it is too late.

“Cruciallly, Jingye have not ruled out retaining the blast furnaces during a transition to low carbon steelmaking if they can secure the backing of the Government.

“The closures at Scunthorpe would represent a hammer blow to communities which were built on steel, and where the industry still supports thousands of jobs directly and thousands more through extensive supply chains.

“Given that we are now on the cusp of becoming the only G7 country without domestic primary steelmaking capacity, it is no exaggeration to say that our national security is gravely threatened.

“This would be catastrophic at any time, let alone in the current era of geopolitical instability and volatility. Steel is an essential component of defensive infrastructure, just as it is to wider plans to invest in growth across the country.

The rejection of the £500m offer leaves Scunthorpe’s future on a knife-edge, although Whitehall sources said that all parties involved in the negotiations were hopeful that a deal could yet be struck.

However, the package offered so far falls well short of the sum that Jingye has been seeking from the government during several rounds of talks since Labour won last summer’s general election.

The Chinese-owned group is thought to have requested £1bn or more from ministers – double the amount handed to Tata Steel, owner of the Port Talbot steelworks in South Wales, last autumn.

British Steel, which was taken over by Jingye in 2020 after a spell in public ownership, employs several thousand people at its sites in Scunthorpe, Teesside and elsewhere.

It has been pushing for taxpayer funding to support a transition to green steelmaking by replacing Scunthorpe’s two blast furnaces with cleaner electric arc furnaces.

Reports late last year suggested that nationalisation was an option being explored by ministers.

The government’s proposal comes at a deeply sensitive time for Britain’s steel industry, with fears of swingeing US tariffs exacerbating concerns that the sector’s viability will be put at risk.

Last month, Mr Reynolds published the government’s Plan for Steel consultation, which will include up to £2.5bn in funding for the industry, in line with a commitment in last year’s Labour election manifesto.

“The UK steel industry has a long-term future under this government,” he said.

“Britain is open for business, and this government has committed up to £2.5bn to the future of steel to protect our industrial heartlands, maintain jobs, and drive growth as part of our Plan for Change.”

During the same month, Mr Reynolds held further talks with Jingye Group’s boss, Li Huiming, in the latest chapter of a negotiation which has been dragging on for more than two years.

British Steel was bought by Jingye the year after it was placed into compulsory liquidation.

The company had been owned by private investment firm Greybull Capital.

British Steel CEO, Mr Zengwei An, said: “We understand this is an extremely difficult day for our staff, their families, and everyone associated with British Steel.

“But we believe this is a necessary decision given the hugely challenging circumstances the business faces.

“We remain committed to engaging with our workforce and unions, as well as our suppliers and customers during this time.”

Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds responded: “I know this will be a deeply worrying time for staff and, while this is British Steel’s decision, we will continue working tirelessly to reach an agreement with the company’s owners to secure its future and protect taxpayers’ money.

“We’ve been clear there’s a bright future for steelmaking in the UK. We’ve committed up to £2.5bn to rebuild the sector and will soon publish a Plan for Steel setting out how we can achieve a sustainable future for the workforce, industry and local communities.”

Unite general secretary Sharon Graham described the company’s move as a “disgrace”

She said: “British Steel is guilty of trying to hold the government to ransom, while using its dedicated workforce as pawns… British Steel must now withdraw its job threats and work with the government and Unite on a sustainable way forward which is in the best interests of the workers, their communities and the wider economy.”

Ben Houchen, the Tees Valley Mayor, said of the impact: “This is devastating for Britain. Losing our ability to make steel in a world as insecure as this is not just short-sighted, it’s dangerous.

“We had a serious deal on the table to bring an electric arc furnace to Teesside. It would have secured jobs, attracted investment, and delivered a long-term future for green steelmaking in the UK. For whatever reason, that deal was quietly dropped. Instead, we ended up with unworkable proposals in Scunthorpe that were politically convenient but strategically and economically flawed.

“I’ve worked constructively with the Labour Government throughout, but I warned them repeatedly: the path they were on would end in collapse. Today, we’ve seen the result.”

UK

Lingering dread over what else about Prince Andrew could still emerge

Published

12 hours ago

October 20, 2025

admin

Lingering dread over what else about Prince Andrew could still emerge

Just a cursory glance at the headlines, and it’s clear the disgrace and downfall of Prince Andrew is not over.

So what next for the man and the monarchy?

The King might have hoped his involvement showed direct action had been taken.

He certainly does not want any distraction from his upcoming state visit to the Vatican.

But that might be wishful thinking.

Now the Met Police has been dragged in too. Forced to look into reports in the Mail on Sunday that Andrew asked his protection officer to smear his accuser, Virginia Giuffre.

The prince allegedly wanted his officer “to dig up dirt” and told an aide at the palace what he had done.

Let’s be clear: back then, Andrew’s security was funded by the taxpayer.

So are we reaching the endgame, and what does that look like?

Andrew might have given up the use of his title, Duke of York, and other honours too.

But what about his style ‘prince’? Some want that ditched too.

It’s a complicated but not impossible process. Andrew could, of course, just stop using it voluntarily.

Some want him to give up his home, too. For a non-working royal, the stately Royal Lodge, with its plum position on the Windsor Estate, is an uncomfortable optic.

Andrew’s wider family is worried. The Sunday Times has reported that the Prince of Wales wants him cut off completely.

With the reputation of the monarchy at risk, William does not want to appear weak. He’s putting loyalty to “the firm” firmly above his familial relationships.

Prince Andrew has always strongly denied the allegations, and restated on Friday: “I vigorously deny the accusations against me”. Sky News has approached him for comment on the fresh allegations set out in the Mail on Sunday.

But with Virginia Giuffre’s tragic death and posthumous memoir due out on Tuesday, Buckingham Palace will be braced for more scandal.

When Andrew gave up his titles, there was certainly a sense of relief.

There is now a sense of dread over what else could emerge.

UK

Why Andrew hasn’t given up being a prince – amid call for him to ‘live in exile’

Published

12 hours ago

October 20, 2025

admin

Why Andrew hasn't given up being a prince - amid call for him to 'live in exile'

Sky News’ royal commentator has explained why Prince Andrew has not given up being called a prince – while another expert has said “the decent thing” for him to do would be “go into exile” overseas.

Andrew announced on Friday that he would stop using his Duke of York title and relinquish all other honours, including his role as a Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.

However, he will continue to be known as a prince.

Royal commentator Alastair Bruce said that while Andrew’s other honours and titles were conferred to him later in life, he became a prince when he was born to Elizabeth II while she was queen.

He told presenter Kamali Melbourne: “I think […] that style was quite special to the late Queen,” he said. “And perhaps the King, for the moment, thinks that can be left alone.

“It’s a matter really for the King, for the royal household, perhaps with the guidance and advice of government, which I’m sure they are taking.”

Since Andrew’s announcement, there has been speculation over whether any further measures will be taken – and one author has now called for him to “go into exile”.

Andrew Lownie, author of The Rise And Fall Of The House Of York, said: “The only way the story will go away is if he leaves Royal Lodge, goes into exile abroad with his ex-wife, and is basically stripped of all his honours, including Prince Andrew.”

Royal Lodge is the Windsor mansion Andrew lives in with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, who has also lost her Duchess of York title.

Mr Lownie continued: “He makes out he’s an honourable man and he’s putting country and family first. Well, if he is, then the optics look terrible for the monarchy. A non-working royal in a 30-room Crown Estate property with a peppercorn rent.

“He should do the decent thing and go. And frankly, he should go into exile.”

Mr Lownie added if the Royal Family “genuinely want to cut links, they have to put pressure on him to voluntarily get out”.

Andrew’s decision to stop using his titles was announced amid renewed scrutiny of his relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and fresh stories linked to the late Virginia Giuffre.

Ms Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein, alleged she was sexually assaulted by Andrew on three occasions – which he has always vigorously denied.

The former duke paid to settle a civil sexual assault case with Ms Giuffre in 2022, despite insisting he had never met her.

UK

Families whose loved ones took their lives after buying poison online write to PM

Published

12 hours ago

October 20, 2025

admin

Families whose loved ones took their lives after buying poison online write to PM

Bereaved families whose loved ones took their own lives after buying the same poison online have written to the prime minister demanding urgent action.

Warning: This article contains references to suicide

The group claims there have been “multiple missed opportunities” to shut down online forums that promote suicide and dangerous substances.

They warn that over 100 people have died after purchasing a particular poison in the last 10 years.

Among those who have written to Downing Street is Pete Aitken, whose daughter Hannah was 22 when she took her own life after buying the poison from a website.

Hannah was autistic and had ADHD. She was treated in six different mental health hospitals over a four-year period.

Mr Aitken recently spoke to Sky News around the second anniversary of Hannah’s death.

He said: “Autistic people seem to be most vulnerable to this kind of sort of poison and, you know, wanting to take their lives.”

Sky News is not naming the poison, but Hannah was able to buy a kilogram of it online. Just one gram is potentially fatal.

“There’s this disparity between the concentration required for its legitimate use and that required for ending your life. And it seems quite clear you could make a distinction,” Mr Aitken said.

Analysis from the Molly Rose Foundation and the group Families and Survivors to Prevent Online Suicide Harms says at least 133 people have died because of the poison. It also says coroners have written warnings about the substance on 65 separate occasions.

The report accuses the Home Office of failing to strengthen the regulation of the poison and says not enough is being done to close dangerous suicide forums online.

Lawyers representing the group want a public inquiry into the deaths.

In a joint letter to the prime minister, the families said: “We write as families whose loved ones were let down by a state that was too slow to respond to the threat.

“This series of failings requires a statutory response, not just to understand why our loved ones died but also to prevent more lives being lost in a similar way.”

The group’s lawyer, Merry Varney, from Leigh Day, said: “The government is rightly committed to preventing deaths through suicide, yet despite repeated warnings of the risks posed by an easily accessible substance, fatal in small quantities and essentially advertised on online forums, no meaningful steps have been taken.”

A government spokesperson said: “Suicide devastates families and we are unequivocal about the responsibilities online services have to keep people safe on their platforms.

“Under the Online Safety Act, services must take action to prevent users from accessing illegal suicide and self-harm content and ensure children are protected from harmful content that promotes it.

“If they fail to do so, they can expect to face robust enforcement, including substantial fines.”

They added that the position is “closely monitored and reportable under the Poisons Act, meaning retailers must alert authorities if they suspect it is being bought to cause harm”.

“We will continue to keep dangerous substances under review to ensure the right safeguards are in place,” they said.

Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK.