Sir Jeremy Wright

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

The Secretary of State is being generous. I take him at his word as I do not think that he intends to use this legislation otherwise than appropriately. However, there is an important point to be made about the language in the Bill as it stands. As he knows, the public interest test is defined in certain ways in clause 2, which states that the test “is not limited to” the grounds listed, so there could be other grounds on which the public interest might be met. I have already pointed out one asp

Voted AYE on: Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading

Jeremy Wright voted AYE on 'Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading' (68-242, defeated)

Spoke in debate: Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Parliamentary appearance by Sir Jeremy Wright

Voted AYE on: Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading

Jeremy Wright voted AYE on 'Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading' (68-242, defeated)

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

I want to ask the Secretary of State about the breadth of the Bill. Clause 1 makes it clear that a “steel undertaking” includes those businesses that have the “manufacture or processing” of iron or steel as part of their operations. Is there any lower threshold to that? Is a business that has only 1% of its operations in iron or steel liable to nationalisation under the Bill? Under clause 2, the Secretary of State is entitled to determine the public interest and can nationalise if it would suppo

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address

Jeremy Wright voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address' (307-171, passed)

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)

Jeremy Wright voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)' (104-316, defeated)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)

Jeremy Wright voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)' (78-408, defeated)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address

Jeremy Wright voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address' (307-171, passed)

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)

Jeremy Wright voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)' (104-316, defeated)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)

Jeremy Wright voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)' (78-408, defeated)

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)

Jeremy Wright voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)' (104-317, defeated)

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)

Jeremy Wright voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)' (104-317, defeated)

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Government’s approach to redacting or withholding documents within scope of the Humble Address agreed by the House on 4 February 2026.

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)

Jeremy Wright voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Spoke in debate: High Speed 2 Reset

Parliamentary appearance by Sir Jeremy Wright

Spoke in debate: Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Parliamentary appearance by Sir Jeremy Wright

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)

Jeremy Wright voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

High Speed 2 Reset

I have to say, I share a good deal of the Secretary of State’s frustration, not least because I was one of those who argued at the time that if the speed of the railway was reduced to roughly what she is proposing, it would open up a number of alternative route options, avoiding the open countryside that the line now cuts across. Can I counter-intuitively ask her to be a little more ambitious, despite everything she has said about high-speed rail? She will recognise that the strategic benefits o