Nationalising British Steel does not mean Labour is going back to the 1970s, a minister told MPs.

Blair McDougall, a business minister, was speaking in the Commons in response to an urgent question about the British Steel announcement.

Rebecca Paul, a Conservative asked him:

Britain’s steel industry is not competitive because of high energy costs and excessive red tape.

But instead of addressing the root causes, this Labour government reverts back to its default solution of nationalisation. Why is this government so keen to take us back to the 1970s?

And McDougall replied:

I simply don’t accept the idea that we’re all going to be in flares and wearing kipper ties and going back to the 1970s simply because we have a government which is willing to intervene rather than standing by and letting people and communities fall onto the scrapheap.

Ministers have published new details of how the proposed fair pay agreements for workers in the care sector will work.

Stephen Kinnock, the care minister, has set out the plans in a written ministerial statement. And this is how the Department of Health and Social Care explains them in a news release.

Millions of care workers in England will be represented in upcoming negotiations on pay and working conditions through a new body established to deliver the first ever fair pay agreement for adult social care.

The new adult social care negotiating body will be set up by the end of the year, bringing together trade unions and employers to negotiate on behalf of the sector.

Through the body, care providers and workers will have voting rights on key issues including pay, terms and conditions, and wider employment matters through a regular negotiation process.

The body will also have an independent chair to oversee the negotiations between employer and worker representatives, who will be appointed in early 2027.

The first fair pay agreement for the sector is due to come into force in 2028-29. The government is investing £500m to help fund it.

Couples could legally marry in forests, on beaches, at sea or in their gardens under new proposals, the Press Association reports. PA says a government consultation announced today, covering rules in England and Wales, could help cut the costs of weddings and mean two ceremonies are no longer required to cover different faiths. PA says:

The average wedding in England is estimated to cost more than £20,000, with venue hire alone typically accounting for around £6,000 without catering.

The system as it stands means some couples have two ceremonies – one where they feel their beliefs are best reflected and another making their marriage legal.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said under proposed changes couples could more easily have legally recognised religious ceremonies, and that humanists could be allowed to carry out legally binding weddings for the first time.

Currently venues are licensed for weddings but the plans propose changing that to the celebrant, allowing couples to marry in any location.

Under the consultation, running from Thursday to September 24, forests, beaches, castles, canal boats and cruise ships at sea could become places to legally marry.

These reforms were first proposed by the Law Commission almost six years ago.

The UK economy returned to growth in May, despite the impact of the Iran war on energy costs, official figures show. Heather Stewart has the story.

Here is some reaction from journalists and commentators to the news that Shabana Mahmood is now expected to be Andy Burnham’s chancellor.

From Jennifer Williams, the FT’s Northern England correspondent

It seems to me there are a few reasons Burnham might choose Mahmood over Miliband despite bluesky thinking it’s outrageous. Many of them are not-ed reasons but not all

Ed basically has the potential to be too powerful. His own agenda (people don’t fundamentally change) coupled with a known ability to drive it through Whitehall, would be a rival for the centre of gravity, when the PM is still trying to set his own after a decade away

Secondly I have never ever thought the words “Ed Miliband” in well over a decade of coveting English devolution, despite him having a northern seat. That feels telling

Yes there’s the obvious immediate warring Labour factions going on, good to see that didn’t wait for Monday. But I wouldn’t really put Andy and Ed in the same bracket politically anyway. “Soft left” is unhelpfully vague and AB is actually quite hard to categorise, not least bc he moves

I think Shabana and Andy are closer than ppl might think in outlook. On immigration he’s not that fluffy - and his latest seat (almost the same as the old one) carries the same imperative. Where he would balk I think is if it feels cruel to him: some of the Morgan era rhetoric feels unlikely

I saw a clumsy quote from a Labour source earlier about Ed being London liberal and some of Andy’s people being working class northerners. These are distinctions that wind people up. But there is, from where I’m sitting, a difference in how these people view things, their electorates for one!

Finally, the markets. But if that was AB’s primary concern - ie if he was that worried Ed would freak them out - it may not have taken this long to reach a decision, assuming the decisions stands into Monday

NB I know Ed’s electorate is in Doncaster. I’m not sure it’s particularly reflected in his outlook, but it is in AB’s.

From the Guardian columnist Owen Jones

Where to even begin with these Labour briefings!

1) Louise Haigh is not working class.

I get that she has a Northern accent, but she is the privately educated daughter of a solicitor.

2) Blocking Ed Miliband from becoming Chancellor because of net zero during rolling heatwaves is a sign of abject political bankruptcy.

3) All of this indicates that Andy Burnham doesn’t have any clear sense of what he wants to do with power.

We’ve seen that film before, and we know how it ends.

4) The fact that there is all this chaotic briefing and counter-briefing already is a very bad sign indeed.

It’s itself a sign of a lack of central direction.

5) Shabana Mahmood as Chancellor just means the Treasury running economic policy, and the government sticking to the same agenda as before.

From Lucy Fisher, Whitehall editor at the Financial Times

What to expect from a Shabana Mahmood chancellorship?

She’s a migration hardliner and social conservative, who rejected Corbyn’s hard-left economic agenda in 2015

But on tax, spend & growth policies she’s been tight-lipped in recent years, leaving investors uncertain about what to expect if (as anticipated) she arrives in No 11 next week

One UK bank board member says her right-of-centre politics “would point to a [Rachel] Reeves continuity, which is the best we could hope for”

But Labour deputy leader Lucy Powell says Mahmood is in favour of “big change” and a “radical platform”

From the broadcaster and writer Steve Richards

If Shabana Mahmood is chancellor it’ll end in tears…quickly. Through no fault of her own she’s given little thought to economic policy and yet likes to make a splash as a minister. There will be no rapport with Andy Burnham. The media and market will approve..until they turn.

From Duncan Weldon, the economist and writer

I remain unconvinced that someone who has expressed no previous interest in fiscal policy, has no obvious economic policy expertise and whose views on the topic are unknown is an ideal candidate for Chancellor.

FWIW:

Miliband - obviously qualified. Effective minister. Brings political baggage. Probably (and somewhat unfairly) gets a negative market reaction.

Cooper/Reynolds - well qualified for the job. Less baggage, markets more neutral.

Streeting - has set out an agenda, markets probably welcome.

The flip side of a CHX not known to have especially strong views on economic policy is a bigger role and say for a beefed up Number Ten. Suspect Number Ten North, MHCLG, DBT, Transport, etc will have a larger role.

You absolutely do not need any formal training in economics to be a successful chancellor.

(And I’d add - the same is true of central bankers).

But it does help to have shown an active interest in economic policy debates.

Zack Polanski, the Green party leader, says reports saying Shabana Mahmood is now set to be Andy Burnham’s chancellor have shown he would be “subservient to the City”.

Polanski posted this on social media this morning.

We don’t know what the cabinet will be yet, but the mood music is ominous.

A Labour Party subservient to the City of London and harking back to the Blair years would be catastrophic for this country.

People simply won’t stand for Rip Off Britain any more.

And he posted this on a tweet that also included a picture of today’s Financial Times splash.

“City relieved” = Burnham’s government won’t challenge the power of the bankers, or tax their wealth.

Who is choosing our politicians - the people or the banking sector?

Argentina’s players’ behaviour was “entirely inappropriate” when they waved a banner in support of their country’s claims to the Falkland Islands after their World Cup semi-final win against England, Peter Kyle has said. As the Press Association reports, Argentina, the defending champions, beat the Three Lions 2-1 in Wednesday’s match in Atlanta. PA says:

Argentina fans celebrated their victory jubilantly, with some near the pitch holding a banner which read “Las Malvinas son Argentinas”, which translates to “The Falkland Islands are Argentinian”.

The banner referring to the dispute over the British overseas territory made its way to the players, who held it up as they revelled in their win.

They could face the prospect of disciplinary action from governing body Fifa for violating rules banning political messaging on the pitch.

Asked about Argentina’s players brandishing the banner, Kyle, the business secretary, told BBC Breakfast: “My reaction is that it was entirely inappropriate. Politics needs to be separate from football. In fact, the World Cup has one of its central tenets that politics is separate from football.

“That is now a matter for Fifa. I expect Fifa to do its investigation thoroughly.”

Peter Kyle, the business secretary, has said it is possible that Jingye, the Chinese firm that used to own British Steel, won’t receive any compensation for its nationalisation.

Asked about this on Times Radio, Kyle said:

The legislation that went through parliament, which I saw through parliament, has a mechanism by which an independent assessor will now judge if or if not any compensation is due.

Asked if it was possible that no compensation might be paid, Kyle replied:

There is that possibility. That is now the decision of the independent assessor that will make that decision.

Reform UK is taking some credit for the British Steel nationalisation, because the party called for this earlier this year.

Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, issued this statement, asking for an assurance that the Chinese company Jingye won’t be paid compensation.

Reform UK called for the nationalisation of British Steel back in April last year to secure Britain’s critical virgin steelmaking capabilities for the next 50 years. It’s good to see the government has finally listened.

We now need a bold strategy that backs British industry by ensuring the use of British steel in both public and private sector procurement, as well as scrapping net zero which is crippling our industry with sky-high energy costs. We must be proudly patriotic in buying British steel.

Compensation should be no more than £1. This business comes with huge liabilities and will require billions of pounds of investment to rebuild the blast furnaces. Taxpayers should not be rewarding failed ownership.

Reform UK’s support for steel nationalisation is significant because it is more or less the only policy the party has that allows Kemi Badenoch to make her claim that Reform is leftwing. On almost every other measure, Reform is very rightwing.

Jakub Krupa has more coverage of Keir Starmer’s trip to Ukraine on his Europe live blog.

Good morning. Conventional wisdom has it that, once a PM announces they are going to stand down, all their power vanishes faster than water down a clear plughole. Broadly that’s correct. But in the last week or so Keir Starmer seems to have been acting with a decisiveness that eluded him for most of his time in office: finalising the defence investment plan; delivering the long-awaited apology to victims of forced adoption; over-ruling the security services to deliver the concession that got the Hillsborough law bill over the line; and finally securing a conditional pardon for Ruth Ellis.

This is not happening because being on the way out makes a PM more powerful. But it does help them focus, and forces them to give up on faffing around.

And we’ve seen another example today. On his last full day as Labour party leader, Starmer has nationalised British Steel.

In truth, this is something that has been in the pipeline for a while. But the steel industry (nationalisation) bill only got royal assent yesterday, and the government has used it to nationalise a company which was previously owned by the Chinese company Jingye and which was already under public control.

Here is the government’s news release. Here is our story by Jasper Jolly.

In a statement, Starmer said:

British Steel is part of the fabric of our nation and a cornerstone of Britain’s industrial strength.

Today’s decision secures the future of steelmaking in the UK, protects skilled jobs and safeguards a vital national capability.

This government will always act in the national interest to support British industry, strengthen our economy and ensure the industries we rely on can thrive long into the future.

But Starmer, who will be replaced by Andy Burnham as Labour leader tomorrow, and by Burnham as PM on Monday, won’t be at the British Steel plant in Scunthorpe to mark this. Instead he is on a visit to Ukraine.

As Starmer ties up his legacy, there is increasing focus on what Burnham will do when he takes office next week. As Pippa Crerar, Jessica Elgot and Kiran Stacey report, it is now thought that Burnham will appoint Shabana Mahmood, the current home secretary, as his chancellor.

Until recently Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, was favourite to be Burnham’s chancellor.

Here is the agenda for the day.

Morning: Keir Starmer is in Kyiv for a meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian president.

Morning: Peter Kyle, the business secretary, is expected to visit British Steel.

10am: Jeremy Pocklington, permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, gives evidence to the Commons public accounts committee about the defence investment plan.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

Afternoon: Kemi Badenoch is on a visit in Aberdeen.

And it is the final day the Commons is sitting before the summer recess. That means lots of written statements. There are 22 on the order paper, including ones covering local government reorganisation, the fair pay deal for care workers, the future of the undercover policing inquiry and laws relating to weddings.

I am afraid we are not able to open comments today for staffing reasons.

But if you want to contact me, do use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.

I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.