A divisionDivision No. 17 · Tuesday, 9 June 2026· Commons· Industrial Policy

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill Committee: New Clause 4

157Ayes
287Noes
Defeated · majority 130 · Government won
202 did not vote
Aye157No287DID NOT VOTE · 202

646 Members · Aye 157 · No 287 · DNV 202 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 9 June 2026 to reject New Clause 4 during the committee stage of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill. The clause was defeated by 287 votes to 157. Committee stage is the line-by-line scrutiny phase of a bill, where additional clauses can be proposed for inclusion in the legislation. New Clause 4, tabled by Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Olney, would have introduced a requirement for the Secretary of State to lay detailed information before Parliament prior to providing any financial assistance under the bill. According to Olney's contribution in debate, the clause was aimed at strengthening parliamentary scrutiny of future financial assistance, requiring disclosure of the nature and amount of any assistance, the intended beneficiaries, the purpose and expected effect, and any associated conditions including repayment terms, guarantees, indemnities, or other liabilities. The vote blocks that transparency requirement from being written into the bill. The division produced a clear cross-party opposition to the clause. Labour MPs, including those sitting under the Labour and Co-operative Party designation, voted uniformly against it, providing the 287 no votes that secured its defeat. The Conservatives voted 84 to nil in favour, the Liberal Democrats 62 to nil in favour, and the Democratic Unionist Party 4 to nil in favour. Four Reform UK MPs with a recorded vote opposed the clause, as did the two Green Party MPs and two MPs listed under Your Party. The vote sits within a series of related divisions on the same bill over 8 and 9 June 2026, in which the government similarly defeated opposition amendments seeking greater parliamentary oversight of ministerial powers under the legislation.

Voting Aye meant
Support requiring parliamentary scrutiny of government financial assistance to the steel industry before it is provided, ensuring MPs can examine the costs, conditions, and purposes of any public money committed
Voting No meant
Oppose imposing prior parliamentary approval requirements on financial assistance to steel, preferring to preserve ministerial flexibility to act quickly in support of a strategically important industry
§ 01Who voted how.444 voting Members · 202 absent

Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The party-line column is inferred from how cohesively each party voted, not a published whip: a clear one-way majority of a party’s voters reads as a line, a close division reads as “Split”.

Party
Party line
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Voted No
0
249
111
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted Aye
84
0
32
Liberal Democrats
Voted Aye
61
0
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted No
0
28
14
Independent
5
4
4
Reform UK
Voted No
0
3
5
Scottish National Party
0
0
7
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Voted Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and Wales
0
2
3
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Your Party
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
1
0
0
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · party line inferred from voting cohesion, not a published whip; “Split” = a close within-party division

Votes by party (CSV) · Premium
§ 02From the debate.6 principal speakers
Sarah OlneySupportiveRichmond Park
Broadly welcomes the Bill as temporary emergency action but supports amendments 7, 8, 9 and 6 to strengthen environmental liability assessment, parliamentary scrutiny of financial assistance, and explicit consideration of tariffs and carbon border adjustments in valuations.Liberal Democrats · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,303 words)
Toby PerkinsSupportiveChesterfield
Welcomes government investment in steel as essential to national security and defence capability; emphasises need for careful management of tariff regime to avoid harming downstream manufacturers and steel stockholders.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (3,547 words)
Dame Harriett BaldwinOpposedWest Worcestershire
Opposes open-ended powers and unlimited financial exposure; supports amendments capping assistance at £1m per employee over five years, requiring quarterly parliamentary reporting, limiting total assistance to £2.5bn, and establishing a duty to seek private sector purchasers.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,684 words)
Cat EcclesSupportiveStourbridge
Opposes new clause 9 (private purchaser duty) and new clause 11 (level playing field requirement) as risks to downstream steel-dependent industries; seeks exemptions or transitional arrangements for grades not domestically produced.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,486 words)
Calvin BaileySupportiveLeyton and Wanstead
Supports government intervention but warns that amendments risk procedural barriers and impediments to defence supply-chain security; emphasises need for integrated steelmaking strategy from ore through production.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (648 words)
Richard TiceQuestioningBoston and Skegness
Defends blast furnace capability at Scunthorpe as strategically vital; questions whether NAO auditors should make sovereign capability decisions and warns that constant availability for sale destabilises business and workforce.Reform UK · Voted no · Read full speech (757 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0