China attacks ‘arrogant and twisted' MPs over British Steel
A spokesman for Beijing's embassy in London criticised the 'anti-China rhetoric' of certain politicians and warned it could damage economic and trade cooperation between Britain and the Communist country.
In a statement, he said British Steel's plan to close its blast furnaces and build electric arc furnaces instead was a 'normal decision' and had only happened as a result of Ed Miliband's net zero plans.
The spokesman warned instead of 'slandering the Chinese government and Chinese enterprises', MPs should be criticising Donald Trump over tariffs.
He said: 'Any words or deeds that politicise or maliciously hype up business issues will undermine the confidence of Chinese business investors in the UK and damage China-UK economic and trade cooperation.'
The comments threaten to deepen a diplomatic rift with Beijing after the Government stepped in to prevent British Steel's Chinese owner Jingye from shutting blast furnaces at its Scunthorpe plant.
A number of MPs, led by former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, have called on the Government to ban China from owning any more critical infrastructure in the UK.
Earlier this week, Sir Iain said: 'This is a country which is committing genocide and where there is slave labour, the forced sterilisation of Uyghur women… They are about to dump steel, electric cars and batteries into our country.'
On Sunday, Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, said he did not want to see another company from China in control of the steel firm.
He also accused Jingye of trying to shut down the British steel industry following claims from unions the company had cancelled orders for vital raw materials.
Government officials were forced to take control of the Scunthorpe site and ensure vital raw materials were delivered in time to keep the blast furnaces going.
The spat threatens to jeopardise the Government's efforts to strike a new partnership with the Chinese.
Sir Keir Starmer was the first British Prime Minister in six years to meet China's leader Xi Jinping, while Mr Reynolds will visit the country for high-level trade talks later in the year.
The spokesman for the Chinese embassy in London said: 'The anti-China rhetoric of some individual British politicians is extremely absurd, reflecting their arrogance, ignorance and twisted mindset.
He went on to state 'basic facts' about British Steel, which he said undermined the views of Sir Iain and others.
'The Jingye Group is a private Chinese enterprise that makes business investments in the UK on the basis of market principles and conducts operation on its own,' he said.
'It is well-known that British Steel had been losing money for many years before its acquisition by Jingye in 2020 and actually went into compulsory liquidation in 2019.
'After taking over, Jingye put in substantial funding to keep the company afloat to this day. Had it not been for the involvement of this Chinese company, British Steel workers might have already faced the risk of unemployment.'
He said: 'It is understood that under the UK government's net zero strategy, steel companies that use iron ore to make steel must achieve net zero emissions by 2035.
'To that end, British steel companies including British Steel have all negotiated with the government to find a path to decarbonisation transition.'
The spokesman said that 'generally speaking', Chinese companies in the UK have operated in compliance with law and achieved steady progress.
Chinese companies in Britain have contributed over '£115 billion to the UK economy and created nearly 60,000 jobs,' he said.
The spokesman said: 'At a time when the US is wielding the tariff stick against all countries, the UK included, and engaging in unilateral and protectionist trade bullying, those British politicians just keep slandering the Chinese government and Chinese enterprises instead of criticising the United States. What on earth are they up to?'
He added: 'We urge the British government to follow the principles of fairness, impartiality and non-discrimination and to make sure that the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies in the UK are protected.
'At the same time, it is hoped that the British government will continue to engage in consultations and negotiations with Jingye to actively seek a solution acceptable to all parties. We will continue to follow the development of this situation.'
'Ban China from owning UK infrastructure'
Earlier this week, Sir Iain called on the Government to bar China from owning any national infrastructure at all, such as nuclear power stations.
He said: 'We cannot have other nations which are not part of the alliance owning Britain's national infrastructure,' he said.
'We cannot continue allowing access to countries which do not play by the rules, and which do not have democracy and the rule of law.
'Not just steel but nuclear, the manufacture of high tech equipment, tanks and engineering, aircraft manufacture.
'All these things have got to be run in the UK and we should only welcome investment from countries we can trust.'
Zengwei An, chief executive of Jingye British Steel, said since his company acquired the business on March 9, 2020 'we have stayed unwavering in our commitment to improving the operation and sustainable development of British Steel'.
He said: 'We have made crucial project investments to ensure British Steel's normal production and operation. Despite unprecedented challenges such as Brexit, Covid-19 and the energy crisis, we have safeguarded over 4,800 jobs and provided high-quality products and services to domestic and international customers, thus contributing to the economic growth of local communities. This is a fact evident to all.
'We express our understanding for the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 the UK Government introduced on 12 April 2025.
'We will engage in active communication with the UK Government to seek a proper solution that ensures a bright future for British Steel. We request that the UK Government respect and protect the legitimate rights and interests of Jingye as a foreign investor throughout this process.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ministers must summon the courage to right an ‘obvious injustice'
The very judges who handed out 'unfair' indefinite prison sentences have joined The Independent 's campaign to resentence thousands of offenders who are still trapped by a law that was abolished in 2012. Sir John Saunders, a former High Court judge, tells us that he would apologise to offenders he sentenced to imprisonment for public protection (IPP) terms. 'I should say I'm really sorry this has happened; it's extremely unfair,' he said. 'I didn't want to be party to unfairness. I would feel very bad about it, I would apologise to them.' The sentences, described as an 'obvious injustice' by one former senior judge, were introduced by David Blunkett as home secretary in 2005 in an attempt to deal with a small number of offenders who might continue to be a danger to the public. Such prisoners were given no release date, were subject to stringent assessment before being let out, and were then liable indefinitely for recall to prison if they broke the conditions of their release. However, the sentences were used more often than Lord Blunkett intended, and the psychological effects of indefinite detention caused more problems than it solved. Lord Blunkett now describes the policy as his 'biggest regret'. The law was repealed by the coalition government in 2012, but it continued to apply to the thousands of prisoners still serving IPP sentences. Victims of the scandal, whose tragic cases have been taken up by The Independent, include Leroy Douglas, who has served 19 years for stealing a mobile phone; Thomas White, who set himself alight in his cell and has served 13 years for stealing a phone; and Abdullahi Suleman, who is still inside 19 years after he was jailed for a laptop robbery. The Independent supports a plan put forward by an expert panel convened by the Howard League for Penal Reform, which calls for IPP prisoners to be given a release date within a two-year window at their next parole hearing. They should, in effect, be resentenced and treated henceforth on the same basis as all other offenders. James Timpson, the prisons minister, says: 'We have significantly improved support for these offenders, with greater access to rehabilitation and mental health support. There is more work to do as we reduce the number of IPP offenders in custody, but we will only do so in a way that protects the public.' We understand why ministers in successive governments have been reluctant to go further. They are fearful of the consequences if someone released from an IPP sentence goes on to commit a serious offence. And they are right to make the protection of the public the highest priority. But that will not be achieved by the continued indefinite detention of 2,500 prisoners who were unlucky enough to be sentenced at the wrong time. Especially when a greater risk to the public is probably posed by the early release of prisoners to free up space in our overcrowded prisons. Simon Tonking, the former recorder of Stafford, told The Independent that the Labour government should use its majority to end the injustice by taking up the Howard League's proposals: 'Virtually everybody who has had any professional dealings with IPP knows that it is unjust and now is the time to act.' It is no use for former ministers such as Lord Blunkett and Alex Chalk, the former justice secretary, calling for justice to be done after they have left office. It is up to Lord Timpson, his boss Shabana Mahmood and ultimately Sir Keir Starmer to do the right thing while they can.
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on car finance scandal redress: mis-sold loans demand action, not excuses or spin
With its ruling in the car finance case, the UK supreme court sent a clear message: some motorists purchased vehicles with deals that were indeed unfair, but it's not the judiciary's job to redraw the boundaries of consumer protection law. That burden, the justices suggested, rests with regulators and elected governments. This reasoning is in line with a major speech in June by the court's president, Lord Reed, who argued that judges aren't policymakers – and shouldn't be. He led a bench that nonetheless upheld a finding of unfairness in the case of the factory supervisor Marcus Johnson. The court flagged the danger, defined the threshold – but stopped short of imposing redress itself. Now, the baton has been passed. Millions could get payouts if the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) follows the court ruling with its proposed redress scheme, now out for consultation. The regulator admits what courts and campaigners have long suggested: that hidden commissions and opaque contracts were endemic, and that consumers were misled on a large scale. It may be 2025, but the roots of this scandal stretch back decades. More than 90% of new car purchases are financed, and for years, buyers weren't offered the best deal – just the one that earned the broker the biggest cut. Last October, the court of appeal saw hidden commissions as tantamount to bribes – secret incentives to push pricier loans. Banks had been on the hook for potentially £40bn in compensation had that view prevailed. But the supreme court disagreed. Dealers aren't fiduciaries, it said. They're not priests or doctors. They're salespeople and everyone knows it. The Treasury had tried, and failed, to intervene on behalf of banks that feared big payouts. The supreme court dismissed that petition with waspish brevity. Rachel Reeves may argue she was guarding financial stability, but it is not a good look to be siding with lenders over misled consumers, especially when there is a strong case to suggest regulators had been asleep at the wheel. The FCA now admits that many firms broke the rules. It plans a compensation scheme covering loans dating back to 2007, including both discretionary and some non-discretionary commission arrangements. The potential bill? At least £9bn, and possibly double that. Most individuals will probably receive less than £950 in compensation. The court's refusal to stretch the law to encompass issues of trust wasn't a shrug; it was a signal. The law allows unfairness to be addressed. But the heavy lifting must be done by the state. This episode lays bare a deeper malaise. Britain's credit system often runs on skewed incentives and asymmetric information. Brokers pose as advisers but act as commission-driven salespeople. In Mr Johnson's case a £1,650 hidden commission – a quarter of the car's price – went undisclosed. That's not a quirk; it's economics' classic lemons problem. In car finance, consumers didn't know how much brokers were pocketing or how that skewed the deal. Without trust or clarity, quality suffers – and everyone overpays for 'lemons' (duds). The court of appeal did focus minds; and failing to interpret the law robustly in the face of clear wrongdoing is itself a judicial choice. The supreme court smartly redirected the narrative. The regulator is stirring. Ministers must now support a consumer-facing system of redress and not shield the City from the consequences of its own mis‑selling. The public will be watching.
Channel 4
an hour ago
- Channel 4
Hostage release should be ‘pre-condition' to recognise Palestinian state
We spoke to Adam Rose, a lawyer acting for British families whose relatives are being held hostage in Gaza. We asked him why the hostages' families were so upset at the Government's proposal to recognise a Palestinian state with certain conditions.
