Steel Trade Measure

My Lords, this episode says a great deal about the attention the Government pay to the business community. For months now, manufacturers, fabricators, construction firms and businesses in aerospace, automotive and defence have warned about the consequences of the Government’s original proposals, yet meaningful changes have come only at the 11th hour, just days before the new regime is due to take effect. Now, we warmly welcome the partial changes that have been announced. It is right that the Government have increased the overall tariff-free quota, that they have reduced the proposed reduction in quota volumes from 60% to 51%, and that they have removed 11 product codes where there is no UK production. But the core problem remains. The Government have left untouched the 50% tariff once a quota is exhausted. This will be passed through supply chains into downstream sectors and ultimately into higher prices for British consumers. Additionally, the Government themselves accept that some commodity codes contain both UK-produced and non-UK-produced grades and sizes. This poses grave problems for UK importing businesses which depend on specialist steel products, alloys and certified grades not readily available from domestic suppliers. There is therefore no genuine case-by-case exemption for specialist steel unavailable from a UK mill. There is only a quota. That is particularly worrying for smaller, high-value manufacturers—specialist firms which import smaller volumes but depend on particular grades—which have no realistic option but to pay the tariff. This will inevitably damage the competitiveness of our downstream sectors. The Government have offered only a three-month transitional period, covering goods contracted before 14 March and imported between 1 July and 30 September. However, industrial supply agreements, particularly for specialist steel, can run for years. Firms that entered into good faith long-term contracts may still face a 50% tariff, simply because delivery falls outside an arbitrary three-month window. The Minister may say that there was no choice; that the existing safeguard expires today, 30 June; and that delay would expose British steelmakers to global overcapacity and subsidised imports. That is precisely why the Government should have brought forward a credible long-term plan earlier, rather than arriving at the deadline with an emergency measure which has needed significant revision in its final days. The Government’s own strategy recognises the central problem of industrial electricity costs. Steel is energy intensive. If Britain wants a strong domestic steel industry, it needs electricity prices that allow British producers to compete, not merely survive behind a tariff wall. Will the Minister explain what further action the Government will take to bring industrial electricity costs down for steelmakers and steel users alike? Will the Government scrap the carbon price burden on energy-intensive industry, rather than allowing firms to face ever more complex costs through the UK emissions trading scheme and the future carbon border adjustment mechanism? Will the Minister also address the growing regulatory burden? Will the Government at last repeal burdensome ESG reporting requirements, including those requiring businesses to report on greenhouse gas emissions, non-financial information and sustainability statements? Can the Minister also answer the following questions? First, the Government’s exclusions rest on a test of “no production, or production paused”. How does the Minister justify keeping specialist grades in scope when there is no UK-produced equivalent that can realistically be used, particularly in aerospace and defence, in which supplier certification takes years? Secondly, will the Government consider creating an expedited exemption or review process for businesses which can demonstrate that a product is unavailable from a UK producer in the required grade, form, quantity or certification standard? Thirdly, when will we see a genuinely durable steel strategy, one which addresses energy and carbon costs, investment, planning delays and regulatory burdens? Finally, earlier today, there was an Urgent Question in the other place on the impacts of the steel tariffs on businesses in Northern Ireland. There is no domestic steel-making capacity in Northern Ireland, which means that many in Northern Ireland will feel they are being penalised without the benefits of protecting their own steel industry. Can the Minister confirm how affordable steel will continue to flow into Northern Ireland under these arrangements? In summary, Britain needs a strong steel industry, but it also needs strong manufacturers, strong construction firms, strong defence supply chains and competitive exporters. The task for the Government is not to choose between upstream steel producers and downstream steel users—it is surely to ensure that both can survive.

My Lords, as someone who has spent most of his life in Sheffield and South Yorkshire, I know that this issue is not an abstract discussion about tariffs and trade policies; it is about the future of communities that have made steel, engineering and manufacturing part of their identity for generations. South Yorkshire has always been more than a producer of steel; it has been the place of innovation. Today, alongside our proud steel heritage, we are home to one of Europe’s leading advanced manufacturing clusters. The work taking place at Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District, around the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, demonstrates what modern British manufacturing can achieve. Global companies such as Rolls-Royce, Boeing, McLaren and many others have chosen to invest there because of the extraordinary skills, research and engineering excellence that exists in our region. That is precisely why getting these measures right matters. I welcome the Government’s Statement and in particular the improvements they have made following engagement with the industry, as we heard earlier. Increasing tariff-free quota volumes and removing product codes where there is no domestic production are sensible changes, and Ministers deserve credit for listening. We on these Benches have consistently supported action to strengthen British steel-making. A resilient domestic steel industry is essential for our economy, our nation’s security and our industrial future. We also recognise the pressures created by global overcapacity and unfair competition. But if there is one lesson that Sheffield has taught us all over the decades, it is that our steel industry and our manufacturing succeed together. One cannot thrive if the other is weakened. The difficulty with these measures is the question of domestic non-availability. Many manufacturers in aerospace, defence, energy and precision engineering require highly specialised grades of stainless bar and cold finished bars that are simply not produced in the United Kingdom at the required grades, specifications, dimensions and commercially viable volumes. These businesses are not choosing to import because they are cheaper; they are importing because no British alternative is available. My Lib Dem colleagues argued in the other place last week that downstream manufacturing supports around 300,000 jobs, compared to approximately 30,000 jobs in primary steel-making. We must therefore ensure that policies intended to protect one part of our industrial base do not inadvertently damage another that employs 10 times more people. In South Yorkshire, we understand those connections better than most. A component manufactured in Sheffield may end up in an aircraft engine, a Formula 1 car, a defence system or an offshore energy project. Those supply chains are complex, highly regulated and internationally integrated. Changing suppliers is not something that happens over a weekend, as we heard earlier; it requires years of qualification, testing and certification. For many firms, there is simply no immediate substitute. I really hope that the Minister can provide reassurance that the remaining product categories, particularly categories 14 and 27, have genuinely been assessed against the reality of domestic supply, rather than simply the theoretical possibilities of production. I also remain concerned about businesses that, as we heard earlier, entered contracts after March but before the final details were announced, only days before implementation. Manufacturers need certainty. Investment decisions are made over years and not weeks. Finally, as the Government begin negotiations in the WTO Article 28 process, I hope they will retain a simple guiding principle: where specialist steel cannot be sourced domestically, permanent tariff barriers serve only to increase costs for British manufacturers without creating new British production. Sheffield’s history teaches us that British steel manufacturing succeeds through innovation, skills and partnership, not artificial shortages. Let us support British steel and British manufacturing, and above all, let us all ensure that industrial policy recognises that these sectors are partners in our nation’s success, not competitors for government support.

First, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, to his place and thank him for everything he has done so far for Sheffield Forgemasters. I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. Let me begin with first principles. The United Kingdom needs a strong and resilient steel sector, both producers and downstream manufacturers. Steel is not simply another commodity; it is the backbone of our manufacturing economy, our defence capability, our critical national infrastructure and our economic security. A country that cannot make steel is a country that becomes increasingly dependent on others for some of its most strategic needs. Yet our steel industry faces an existential challenge. Fifty years ago, the United Kingdom produced 27 million tonnes of steel a year. Even as recently as 2010, we produced 12 million tonnes. By 2024, that had fallen to just 4 million tonnes, meeting around only 30% of our domestic demand. No responsible Government can simply stand by and accept that decline. That is why we are committed to doing two things in tandem. First, we published our steel strategy on 19 March. It addresses the structural challenges facing the sector and is backed by up to £2.5 billion of government investment, alongside the £500 million already committed to Port Talbot, which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will appreciate. In response to the noble Lord’s point about electricity, the Government also provide meaningful support through the British industry’s supercharger, helping to reduce electricity costs for this energy-intensive industry and strengthening its long-term competitiveness. Secondly, we committed to introducing robust new steel trade measures to safeguard domestic steel production and protect our ability to produce steel for defence, critical national infrastructure and the industries of the future. Today, I have addressed that second commitment. I think every noble Lord recognises the scale of the challenge facing steel producers across the world. Global overcapacity, opaque state subsidies and artificially depressed prices mean that British steelmakers are not competing on a level playing field. For the past eight years, UK producers have benefited from the steel safeguard inherited from the European Union. That safeguard, introduced by the previous Government, provided an important degree of protection through quotas and a 25% out-quota tariff. But despite those measures, UK steel production continued to decline. We have now reached a critical point. Under WTO rules, the safeguard legally expires today and cannot be extended beyond eight years. The same rules apply to the European Union. Had we simply allowed those protections to lapse without replacement, UK steel production would have lost all meaningful protection overnight. Doing nothing was never an option. Indeed, at precisely the moment when Canada, the United States and the European Union have all strengthened their own trade defences, failure to act would have left the United Kingdom exposed as one of the few major open markets in the world. We would quickly have become the destination of supply steel diverted from global markets. The consequences would have been profound. It would not simply have weakened our steel industry; it would have threatened its very survival. That is why the Government have acted. From tomorrow, a new tariff rate quota regime will come into force. It introduces a 50% out-quota tariff while protecting only those categories of steel that are made or have the realistic potential to be made in the United Kingdom. We have always been clear that these measures must work not only for steel producers but for the manufacturers who rely on steel every day. That is why we have listened carefully to industry. Following extensive engagement, we have increased the volume of tariff-free quotas to 3.2 million metric tonnes—an increase of more than 560,000 tonnes compared to our provisional proposal, representing a significant 21% uplift. Nearly three-quarters of UK steel imports by value, and more than half by volume, remain outside the scope of these measures altogether. We recognise that British manufacturers sometimes need specialist grades of steel that are simply not available from domestic producers. The quotas have therefore been carefully designed to ensure that those imports can continue without unnecessary additional costs. We have introduced transitional arrangements, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for contracts agreed before 14 March and imported between 1 July and 30 September. We will review the operation of these measures after 12 months, monitoring their impact from day one. We have worked intensively with the European Union. Given our deeply integrated supply chains, we have reciprocal arrangements that provide greater certainty for the UK-EU steel trade from tomorrow, while discussions continue on the longer-term partnership. We remain committed to working constructively with our international partners to address the root cause of the challenge of global overcapacity. Some have questioned whether the measure is necessary. I simply ask them: do they believe that the United Kingdom should continue to have a sovereign steel industry? If the answer is yes, they must also explain how they would protect it from the flood of cheap, heavily subsidised steel created by global overcapacity. It is simply not credible to support British steel in principle while opposing every measure that is needed to preserve it. Our tariff and quota measures are not about protectionism; they are about fairness. They will ensure that British producers are not undercut by unfair trader imports and prevent the United Kingdom becoming a dumping ground for surplus steel. Without action, thousands of highly skilled jobs, strategically important in the capabilities and future of steel communities across our country, would be placed at risk. There are those who argue that the market alone should decide and that we should simply buy the cheapest steel available, wherever it comes from, but we know how that story ends: we buy cheap today, domestic production declines tomorrow, the steelworks close, skills disappear and communities suffer. Then, when international markets tighten or geopolitical tensions rise, we suddenly discover that we have surrendered our sovereign capability and have nowhere else to turn. We have seen the consequences of allowing strategic industries to decline before. Communities across our country are still living with those consequences today. The Government are simply not prepared to repeat those mistakes. The Government have made their choice: we choose to stand with British steel workers, manufacturers and communities whose livelihoods depend on this vital industry. We choose to defend our sovereign steel-making capability, because we understand that steel is not simply another sector of the economy; it is a strategic, tangible and national asset. These measures are fair, proportionate and necessary. They strike the right balance between protecting domestic producers and ensuring that downstream manufacturers have access to the steel they need to grow. Above all, they send a clear message that the Government will not allow the United Kingdom to become a dumping ground for surplus steel, nor will we stand by while our strategically important British industry is allowed to decline. We are backing British steel, protecting British jobs and safeguarding an industry that will remain fundamental to our country’s prosperity, resilience and security for generations to come. Before I sit down, I will address the technical questions the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about how the measure will operate and the impact on sectors and businesses. Noble Lords will be aware that the measure will be reviewed in 12 months, and the Government will look at many of the issues the noble Lord raised and make necessary changes. However, I confirm that we will remain responsive to any significant changes in circumstances. While we want to provide the industry with as much predictability and certainty as possible, we reserve the right to intervene before the 12-month review if there is a serious and material change in market conditions and domestic supply. The noble Lord also asked how the Statement will impact Northern Ireland. Specific arrangements are in place. These include specific tariff rate quotas from the EU, and facilitations to protect steel of UK origin moving within the UK from incurring duty. HMRC has confirmed these arrangements to industry, and more information will be available on GOV.UK tomorrow.

I join the Minister in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, to the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. It is so helpful to have someone with such experience of the steel industry participating in our debates. I welcome some of the assurances that the Minister has given, but one of the questions I raised I would like him to focus on for a few moments: the growing regulatory burden faced by our steel industry. I join with him in saying that of course Britain needs a strong steel industry: it is part of our past and it must be part of our future. However, there are many signs that the growing regulatory burden is hampering growth in the sector, particularly the burdensome ESG reporting requirements, including those requiring businesses to report on greenhouse gas emissions, non-financial information and sustainability statements. He did not have time to deal with my question. Before I move on to the other questions, it would be helpful if he could address the growing regulatory burden faced by our industry.

I thank the noble Lord. Ministers, colleagues and officials from the department have regular meetings with the sector, with producers and downstream users through an arrangement of sector councils and all that. We regularly get feedback from them. If any such requirements do hamper, we will take note of that, but so far, we have heard nothing from downstream users or producers. In respect of our international obligations, whether it is CBAM, ETS or whatever, we are a country that complies with international regulations. We have set out our case as far as CBAM and ETS are concerned and will continue to do so.

Dealing with the whole question of energy costs—

My Lords—

Sorry. I am perfectly happy to give way to Back-Benchers if anyone wishes to intervene.

My Lords, it seems to me that the announcement made today was essential. The Government would have come in for criticism had they not put forward such a Statement. Is it consistent with the contents of the steel Bill, for which we have done the first day of Committee and are about to have day 2. I am assuming that everything that has been said today is consistent with the Bill that is going through. Clearly, there will have to be other announcements made as and when we see what is needed to support the industries. There must be some unknowns in all of this. If the Minister has any indication of when we might know the end of the passing of the steel Bill, that would be helpful.

I thank my noble friend for those points. First, let me say something about the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill that is going through this House. That Bill gives us a framework to acquire any steel undertaking in the public interest. Once we do acquire, in the public interest, that aligns with our overall steel strategy, which is to support our domestic supply of steel. That is precisely what we are doing, to increase domestic supply, which is currently 30%, to as much as 50%.

My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, we are now on the Back-Bench section of questions to the Minister on the Statement. As there do not seem to be any more Back-Benchers wishing to ask questions, and we are still waiting for the full complement of Front-Benchers to continue with next business, I suggest we adjourn briefly to a time to be announced on the annunciator.