Steel Tariffs

12.40 pm

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on steel tariffs.

May I start by giving the apologies of the Minister for Trade, who is in Turkey, negotiating further trade deals for British industry?

On 19 March, the Government set out the UK’s plan to introduce a robust new trade measure from 1 July. It will limit tariff free steel imports, as compared with the steel safeguard measure. Any imports above the levels in the measure will face a 50% tariff.

Protecting primary steel production is crucial to the UK’s critical national infrastructure and defence. That is why we have published a long term plan for steel and are introducing a new trade measure countering the unprecedented and damaging effect of global overcapacity. It is simply wrong that only 30% of the steel that we need in the UK is made in the UK.

Steel is essential for advanced manufacturing and engineering, and the interests of the domestic steel sector and downstream industry are best served together. A thriving steel industry strengthens supply chain resilience for downstream businesses and limits their exposure to global supply shocks. We need to balance the need to protect domestic steelmaking with maintaining secure, reliable supply chains for downstream businesses.

Imports will remain important. The Government have engaged extensively with businesses across a range of sectors, including manufacturing, when developing this measure. Indeed, last week, I held a roundtable with downstream industry, together with my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. We, and the Secretary of State, also heard from several colleagues about the concerns of businesses in their constituencies. We are listening carefully to companies throughout the supply chain as we finalise the measure.

We have introduced a transitional arrangement; the new measure will not apply to goods under contract before 14 March 2026 and imported between 1 July and 30 September 2026. We have introduced a carry over mechanism to give importers more flexibility. We will review the measure after 12 months to ensure that it remains fit for purpose.

We are also engaging intensively with the European Commission on our respective steel measures, and are working to find a bilateral solution that protects vital UK EU steel trade. This engagement reflects the unique structure of our trading and security relationships and the interconnectedness of our supply chains, but we need to be clear: if we do not act, we will not have steel making in the UK. The US, Canada, the EU are all acting; we must too.

I thank the Minister for that statement.

Aerospace, the automotive sector, Formula 1, the construction sector, and manufacturing businesses that use steel, which employ 300,000 people, are all being impacted by Labour’s botched tariffs. Many specialist steels—the Minister may have heard this from manufacturing businesses—are not, as it stands, even produced in the UK. That is a real issue when it comes to, for example, categories 14 and 27, which are used in aircraft wings, or in defence applications that we need to make ourselves safe. Where defence companies have cost plus contracts, the tariff on steel that is not made here will just get added to the bill for the Ministry of Defence.

Will the Minister listen to Stephen Morley, president of the Confederation of British Metalforming, who says: “The UK risks accelerating the decline of its manufacturing base rather than preserving it”, or Simon Boyd from REIDsteel, a British steelmaker, when he says that these measures will kill off “downstream customers of steelmakers in the UK”?

I am sure that is not the Minister’s intention, but with just two weeks to go, with respect, it is time to stop listening and start acting.

Will the Minister answer three questions? First, will he confirm today that the measures will not be applied retroactively throughout the whole life of existing, agreed contracts? Secondly, will he exempt steel—especially in categories 14 and 27—that is simply not made here in the necessary volumes? Thirdly, after listening to industry, will the Government please delay these tariffs for at least six months so that they can get this right?

In line with your guidance about constructive debate, Mr Speaker, I am sure we will have some constructive debate now. The shadow Minister has raised some legitimate questions, and I am very happy to provide the answers.

I think we all recognise the importance of the steel industry and the downstream sector—there is definitely a point of agreement there. The point about timing is a critical one, and on the face of it, the request for a delay is not unreasonable. The important thing to recognise is that our steel safeguard measure expires on 30 July. It is not possible for us to extend that measure; it has lasted for eight years, and under World Trade Organisation rules we cannot extend it, so new measures are required. Of course, the EU is introducing a new measure on 1 July, and the US and Canada have also introduced new measures. If we were not to introduce a measure, the UK would become the global dumping ground for subsidised steel. That would be the end of our primary steel industry, so something needs to be done.

In designing the measures, we have been very careful to ensure that they are targeted at those steels that are made, or could be made, in the UK. However, the categories are quite broad, and we acknowledge that some steels that are not, and could not be, made in the UK could be swept up in them. That is the point of the quotas. Since our draft measures were published, we have consulted extensively with industry—I have known Steve Morley for a very long time, and I listen very carefully to what he says, but more than that, we have carried out extensive consultation. The Minister for Trade and I have met the downstream group on three occasions, and I have met the Aerospace Growth Partnership, the Construction Leadership Council and many other businesses. We will be publishing our final measures in line with our EU negotiations when they are completed, in time for 1 July.

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

I am grateful for this urgent question. Today, I am publishing the Committee’s correspondence with Ministers after the roundtable we held with steel producers, expressing a very high degree of alarm that these measures were not in the right place and thousands of jobs are now at risk.

There is a loophole for the import of fabricated steel. Canada and the United States have both moved to close that loophole; there is a question about why we have not taken the same steps. Twelve months is too late. There are no exemptions for steel products that we do not make, as we have heard, and there is no clarity on the use of procurement to drive domestic production. It also appears that a number of the quotas have been set in the wrong place, so will the Minister look again at the advice the Select Committee provided and come back to the House urgently—within the next week—with some adjustments to help safeguard a brilliant industry with a brilliant future ahead of it?

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for both his work and that of his Committee on this issue. I recognise the concerns that were raised in his Committee earlier this week. On the point about timing, though, while I recognise the uncertainty this causes for business, it is impossible for the Government to announce the final arrangements until our discussions with the EU have concluded. I am reliably informed by those people with knowledge of negotiations with the EU that these things tend to run to the wire, so while I appreciate that it creates uncertainty, we need to wait until that point. However, the feedback from industry about quota levels has been heard by Government, and we are looking at those quota levels. That was the point of publishing the draft measures in the first place.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The steel sector is a vital UK industry. We must support it in the face of numerous challenges, including China’s unfair practices and Trump’s trade war, but I am extremely concerned about the impact on parts of the steel industry supply chain if these proposed tariff changes are implemented. We all want businesses to buy British, but that is just not an option if there is no domestic supplier that can meet the grades and certifications that its customers require. Businesses simply cannot buy British, and will be punished by new tariffs as a direct result. The specialist steels needed by aerospace, defence and precision engineering are not made in this country in the grades or volumes that those sectors require, and qualifying a new source takes not a fortnight, but several years. The Government are already having sufficient difficulty funding their defence investment plan without loading additional costs on to the defence manufacturers. Tariffs on steels not available in the UK will materially damage downstream manufacturers, with serious implications for their competitiveness, as well as for investment and jobs.

What response did the Minister give experts in the manufacturing industry when they warned him about these matters? What conversations has he had with Tata Steel in determining the Government’s tariff position? Will he remove categories from the regime where no domestic production capability exists, such as product codes 14 and 27, which are critical for the viability of many aerospace and defence manufacturers? Will the Secretary of State commit to delaying or tapering implementation until proper mitigations have been put in place?

I thank the hon. Member for her constructive engagement on this issue with me over the past few weeks. The nub of her question is, I think, about domestic suppliers and the availability of domestic supply. As I said, the measures have been designed to cover those steel categories that are made or could be made in the UK. She raises the particular issue of speciality steels. We all understand the position with Speciality Steel UK in Stocksbridge and Rotherham. That business is going through administration, and it was impossible for it to compete in the UK while there was an influx of subsidised steel.

The hon. Member asks about the conversations I have had with industry. I will tell her what I said to the Aerospace Growth Partnership. When I met it this morning, I said that clearly we would not want to start from this point, but that it is about choices. This Government have decided that we want to have a full aerospace supply chain, including our own speciality steels production. That is a different choice from the one that the previous Government made when they were approached by industry, offering to co invest in that site and keep it open. They rebuffed all those responses, because their view was, “Leave it to the market, let the steel plants close.” We are making a different choice.

As the Minister knows, I represent Llanwern, which produces galvanised steel. I repeat my ask to the Minister to be mindful of the impact of the scale of the allocations for non EU countries on Llanwern. Will he continue to liaise directly with Tata and the unions on this issue?

I am particularly concerned about the allocations for galvanised steel, as my hon. Friend says, particularly given the country’s reliance on the ZODIAC galvanising line in Llanwern. That is a critical part of our steel and our national infrastructure. It is the only process route that we have to make car auto body and various construction and coating steels. A lot depends on that plant, and I am considering the issue seriously.

Engineering firms in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire are integral to automotive and aerospace supply chains, so how can it be right or in the national interest that they pay a tariff of 50% on the steel they import and use, while European producers making those parts with the same steel pay low or no tariffs?

I have just been alerted to the fact that I said the current measures will expire on 30 July. It is actually on 30 June. It was hopefully correct in the context, but I am happy to correct the record. On the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman, these measures are clearly designed to support primary steel production. That is their purpose and what they have been designed for. It is about getting the balance right so that we support that level of primary production in the UK while dealing with the issues with the downstream steel producers so that they can get the steels they need within the UK or perhaps more broadly within the EU, as we discuss our market arrangement measures with it.

We all support greater production here in the UK, but the details of these tariffs need more work. Black Country MPs, such as me and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), have heard huge worries from our downstream industries, including stockholders such as Amari, fabricators such as Angle Ring, and trade associations such as the British Constructional Steelwork Association and the Cast Metals Federation. Will the Minister go away and review the details? We need protections for fabricated steel, like those Canada and the US have in place. Once again, we are seeing projects in receipt of massive public funding importing fabricated steel. We need a detailed look again at the categories and the quotas. We need proper consultation with UK Metals Council members, and we need to look at the detail again to ensure that it is right and that it supports a great future for manufacturing in the Black Country and elsewhere.

I thank my hon. Friend for the strong work that she has done advocating for businesses in her area. Across the whole west midlands, there has been strong support from west midlands Members of Parliament for their businesses, and quite right too. She may recall from the roundtable discussion we had with the Secretary of State and the Minister for Trade earlier this week that her concerns are being heard and taken into account, and I want to reassure her about that. I neglected to mention earlier the engagement we have had with the British Constructional Steelwork Association, which she mentioned. I reassure her that I and my officials are talking to the BCSA, too.

The Minister says that the concerns about fabricated steel are being taken into account. Can he be a bit more specific about why other countries have protections for fabricated steel in their economies, but we do not yet have any in ours?

I can give a specific example, if that would be helpful. A number of Members have mentioned the specific situation in Canada, for instance, and I have looked carefully at the situation there. Fundamentally, it has a completely different tariff regime, which would not necessarily be straightforward or legal to apply in the UK. However, I continue to look at that. I reiterate the point that this measure is designed to support the steel industry. If other concerns fall outwith that, they need to be raised and dealt with appropriately.

May I add my voice to that of other Black Country Members? On behalf of Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton, I am grateful to the Minister and the Department for Business and Trade for their ongoing engagement with me and local businesses. It is much appreciated, but can I also add my voice to those calling for a review of quotas? In some places, those have been reduced by more than 80% on products not currently produced here. Equally, we have fabricated products being imported that are not subject to any tariffs, which could impact on local downstream supply chain industries.

I thank my hon. Friend not just for her question, but for the invitation to visit Stourbridge and have this discussion with businesses in her constituency. I am looking forward to that, and I thank her. To reiterate the point that I made about the quotas, the Government have published draft quotas and we are engaging in consultation. We listen carefully to her representations and those of others, but the final quotas, when they are published, will ultimately be dependent on that consultation and the negotiations we are having with the European Union.

I am greatly concerned by this issue. I spoke in the consideration of the steel Bill, and I raised the concerns of some of my businesses. The Minister rightly said that the measures expire on 30 June, but there is less than two weeks to go and huge amounts of uncertainty. Businesses are having to stock up on that steel, so costs are already going up. How did the Government let this happen? Did the impact assessment not show that there would be a huge impact on steel? What will happen next?

As I mentioned to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the Chair of the Select Committee, I am sympathetic about the uncertainty. It is a difficult position for businesses to be in. To be clear, the reason for the uncertainty is that the publication of the final measures is dependent on market access negotiations with the European Union. It is to be expected that the negotiations with the European Union will go very close to the deadline.

UK steel sector voices and Cabinet officials met to back procurement of British made steel at Tata Steelpark in Wednesfield, rather than in offices in Whitehall, which I welcome. I also met Walsall Wheelbarrow, a family owned business started by Fred Thacker in 1939. It is the only UK manufacturer of wheelbarrows left in the UK. Will the Minister look at ensuring that imported steel that cannot be made in the UK remains tariff free?

The design of the steel measures, because of the different steel grades, means that the combined nomenclature codes fall into large buckets, so although the Government have targeted the measures at steels that are or could be made in the UK, some that are not or could not be made in the UK end up being caught up in the measures. That is the point of the quotas. It is important that we ensure that those quotas are in the right place, including for businesses such as Walsall Wheelbarrows. I have slightly lost count of the number of wheelbarrows that I have, but I will be sure that the next one I buy is from Walsall.

From Yeovil’s cutting edge defence manufacturers to Thorn Wood Forge, which makes hand crafted tools in Hinton Saint George, businesses in my constituency need steel that is currently not produced here. A 50% tariff would be disastrous. Will the Minister commit himself to exemptions for specialised steel grades that are not made in this country at the scale and spec needed by businesses in Yeovil?

The hon. Gentleman and I have engaged significantly on the industrial base in Yeovil, and I know how important it is to his local community. This takes us back to the point about steels that are or could be made in the UK. The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman and by many other people primarily involves the Speciality Steels plant. When we designed the trade measures, we were expecting a very quick move into new ownership, but it has taken about seven months longer than expected, and I am aware of the concern that that is causing businesses. I am, however, unapologetic about our determination to create the right market conditions, so that the production of speciality steels in the UK is a viable business proposition.

It is absolutely right in principle for the Government to try to defend the steelmaking sector, particularly Liberty at Stocksbridge and Rotherham. However, there are downside implications for smaller firms, particularly manufacturing firms such as Ansell Handtools, Special Steel Group and Crown Hand Tools in my constituency, all of which have said that they cannot buy precisely the steel that they need, or the quantities of steel that they need, from British manufacturers. That is the challenge. I know that the Minister has been doing a great deal of work on this; can he tell me how he will leave a channel open for concerns to be raised by those companies if the further measures that he has taken do not address their particular grievances?

Order. May I ask the Minister to keep his responses short? Back Benchers should keep their questions on point as well?

I will endeavour to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me say to my hon. Friend that I will do exactly what I have done since the day these draft measures were announced: engage with Members on both sides of the House and with all businesses. I hope Members will feel that I have endeavoured to do that. We have had had cross party discussions and I have had many meetings with businesses, trade associations and individual colleagues, and I am determined to continue to do so.

The real reason for the rise in the steel problem is the energy price—the input price. Has the Minister had any challenging conversations with his colleague the Secretary of State, and will he consider exemptions for the defence industry as well? As he knows, the new Defence Secretary is now trying to balance a very difficult budget, and I am sure he would be happy to do what he can to help.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that link with defence. I know that he cares about it deeply, as I think we all do, but that has not really come out until now. He also mentioned energy. As he will know, we increased the supercharger rebate from 60% to 90%, and the British industrial competitiveness scheme will come into force next year—but there will be a refund for this year as well. That will affect many of the downstream businesses. However, I believe—as, I am sure, does the right hon. Gentleman—that the crucial point about defence is that we need the capability to make aerospace deals in the UK, and our measures are designed to ensure that that happens.

The imposition of tariffs on black painted and zinc painted steel banding—products that are not manufactured in the UK, and are therefore imported from the EU—and the scramble for quota at the beginning of the year will increase costs for our steel producers, and will have a serious impact on importers’ cash flow. Will the Minister look at the tariffs again and do all that he can to ensure that those particular tariffs and quotas do not go ahead?

This issue, which my hon. Friend has raised with me before, relates primarily to category 4 products. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) earlier about the importance of that in Llanwern. I am very concerned about category 4, and it is one of the issues that I am looking at.

Northern Ireland manufacturers—and, indeed, metal traders—who rely on those specialist grades, including stainless steel box section, are already impacted by EU tariffs, and the additional tariffs being imposed by the Government will have an adverse effect on those manufacturing sectors in Northern Ireland. What consideration will the Government give to them?

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on exactly the issue with which the Government are dealing at the moment, which is the interaction between our own measures and our own market and the EU measures and the EU market, and the market access that we can negotiate between the two. Unfortunately, that is the issue that is causing uncertainty for businesses such as those that he mentioned.

The Minister has mentioned the negotiations with the European Union. The elephant in the room is the fact that we would not be in this position if we had not left the European Union on the terms negotiated by the last Government, which has left us isolated and vulnerable to trade wars of this kind. The British Chambers of Commerce says that this is “self inflicted damage to the economy”, given that “sectors rely heavily on imported steel”.

What lessons is the Minister taking from that, and from his conversations with his colleagues as they negotiate our future relationship with the European Union? We need to sort out not just matters such as the carbon border adjournment mechanism, but a sector by sector deal to help our British businesses in the future.

I am afraid that I am the ultimate pragmatist. I would not have wanted to start here, but starting here, I am determined that we will do the best we can.

The Minister is right to point to the uncertainty that businesses are facing, and my constituents and local businesses repeat that message to me regularly. The Minister has indicated that there may be a chance that some of the tariffs or the categorisations will be changed. Will he undertake to come to the House and make a statement as soon as that is announced?

As soon as the measures are finalised, the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), will want to report them to the House in the usual way.

This week I hosted a meeting between officials from the Department for Business and Trade and representatives of Hanson Springs, a brilliant family manufacturing business in my constituency that exports across the world and whose specialised products are made from steel. I thank the Minister for his personal interest in the case. My I urge him to ensure that nothing the Government do, particularly in those negotiations with the EU, will harm brilliant British businesses such as Hanson Springs?

I thank my hon. Friend and Hanson Springs for their interaction with my officials. I know that the specific issue of 13 or 14-metre lengths of rod is a problem for him, but I can assure him that in all our negotiations, whether with the EU, India, Turkey or the United States, this Government are putting British industry first.

The Minister says that the Government are listening to the concerns of businesses. May I be so brazen as to suggest that we need action and need it urgently, given the timescale of these changes—changes that will cripple steel using businesses across the manufacturing, construction and infrastructure sector in my constituency, which have no domestic steelmaking industry in Northern Ireland on which to rely? Will the Minister meet businesses from Northern Ireland as a matter of urgency to discuss the devastating impact that this will have?

I shall be happy to meet businesses in Northern Ireland, as I have met businesses throughout the United Kingdom.

This issue has raised a great many concerns in my constituency and across the Black Country. I have been working closely with my colleagues in Sandwell in particular, and we have had many meetings with local companies and communication with my hon. Friends the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) and for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes).

Hadley Industries, a large employer, is already considering downscaling its number of employees. Pargat Housewares in my constituency, another large employer, is a significant manufacturer of pots, pans and bakeware—in fact, it is one of the largest manufacturers in the UK, supplying most of our superstores and exporting. However, steel suitable for kitchenware is not manufactured in the UK in significant quantities and at competitive prices. What advice would the Minister give you give companies that are facing a 60%—

Order. I call the Minister.

I am familiar with the issue of kitchenware, which is very similar to some of the other issues that have been raised. If a particular kind of steel falls within a tariff area, not because it is made or could be made in the UK but because it is grouped in that way as part of the trade measures, the quota is designed to resolve that. If the business in question feels that there is a problem with setting the quota, I ask my hon. Friend to write to me. Alternatively, representatives of those businesses could come and meet my officials.

Order. If Members have prepared a long question, I suggest they cross most of it out.

On Monday my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) asked the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), about the impact of these new steel tariffs on the defence investment plan. His answer was not particularly clear, which surprised me, given the strong representations that both he and I will have had from the Plymouth Manufacturers’ Group. What conversations have the Minister and his colleagues had with the Ministry of Defence about the impact of tariffs on the DIP, and will he agree to meet me and the Plymouth Manufacturers’ Group?

I should be happy to meet the hon. Lady and representatives of businesses in her area. As the Minister for Industry, I am responsible for ensuring that we have adequate productive capacity to defend the nation, and in that respect these steel measures will provide the steel that we need for defence.

I thank the Minister for his personal engagement on this matter. As he knows, time is of the essence. Businesses are already telling me that they are cancelling orders, and that these quotas and tariffs create uncertainty. I cannot understand why we would put tariffs on our own British businesses when they cannot obtain the size and grade of steel that they need, and that includes non speciality steel in categories 1 and 7. Will the Minister apply tariff exemptions when there is no ability to buy British?

There are issues with category 1, and I am looking at that. As I mentioned before, the uncertainty is unfortunate, but my hon. Friend will understand why it is there. I am aware that some businesses have been told by their stock holders that all their steels will be subject to a tariff, but that is not always the case. I can be generous and say that stock holders are perhaps also suffering some uncertainty and want to protect their own businesses, but I ask them to look very carefully at the codes. If they need some help with that, my officials stand ready to support them.

Firms such as Hewland Engineering in Maidenhead face a 50% tariff on their specialist steel, but there is no approved British supplier to make the grades they need. That is not a steel strategy, but a tax on British manufacturing. I know the Minister understands their concerns, so will he go further and exempt categories for which there is no realistic British manufacturing or supply?

I can go further than understanding and offer some practical advice, if that is helpful. The first thing to check is whether the steels that the hon. Member mentions are made, or could be made, in the UK—the “could be made” is important. He is shaking his head, so I assume that they are not made in the UK but are caught in a category group simply because the groups are so broad, and they might represent a small part of that group. That is the purpose of the quota. If the hon. Member’s businesses feel that the quota is too small for their needs and for other businesses in the sector, they should urgently get in touch with me.

Local manufacturers in Huddersfield have raised real concerns with me, particularly about the unintended consequences of this policy, the lack of a level playing field for raw materials and finished imports, and uncertainty around supply. Some are already seeing cost inflation in key steel outputs. Can the Minister please look at these matters again? Categories 14 and 27 have also been raised with me, and we must communicate better with our local companies.

My hon. Friend mentions categories 14 and 27, and perhaps her businesses could share their views with me. She says that we must communicate better. I am absolutely determined to communicate as much as possible, so if she gets her businesses to get in touch with me and my officials, we will take their representations into account.

That is exactly what I did on behalf of my constituent Paul Kenchington: I wrote to the Secretary of State about the specialist steel that he uses, and I have not had a reply. Why can the Minister not say today that, until we are producing this steel ourselves, he will exempt from these tariffs all the steel that is not currently made in this country? It must be simple to do that.

If it was simple, we would do it. Of course, it is not that simple, because, as I have described, the category groupings for steels are much broader than individual grids. There are 20-odd categories, covering a whole range of grids, and that is why the quota size is particularly important. If there are issues with the quotas, we must deal with them. The hon. Gentleman says that he has not had a reply to his letter, for which I apologise on behalf of the Secretary of State. I can assure him that I will get my officials to look into that immediately.

In my constituency, Xtreme Stainless builds exhaust systems and would always want to buy British steel. The company believes it is better made, and wants to back British jobs and manufacturing, but the owner is watching firms get around the tariffs by sending finished products to the UK, which undermines British manufacturers. Could the Minister please tell me what the Government are doing to close the gap so that the tariffs protect the whole supply chain, not just the first step of it?

The issue there is category 14, because we want to protect the stainless production that we have in the UK. I am not particularly familiar with exhaust systems manufacturing, but it largely uses flat stainless steel, which we do not make in the UK. As I mentioned, it is about making sure that we have a sufficient quota for that business, so that it does not need to pay the tariff. If my hon. Friend could share the information with me, I would be very grateful.

Order. I am going to let colleagues in on a secret: I cannot read their minds. If you are not continually bobbing, I do not know whether you are uninterested or want to be called.

May I ask about jobs? I appreciate that the Minister has answered a lot of questions about tariffs, but a lot of my constituents work in Trostre, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith). We have talked a lot about the £2.5 billion steel fund. Nearly two years later, sites such as Trostre are still waiting, with no commitments, no timelines and no certainty on investment. No answers were found in the steel strategy, which was published in March. Can the Minister give me a straight answer on when Welsh steel sites will see investment from the steel fund?

I can indeed give a straight answer. Welsh steel sites will see money from the steel fund when the businesses that own them make a successful application for the money. Some £1 billion of the fund currently sits in the National Wealth Fund, awaiting such proposals. Tata Steel is particularly relevant to Trostre. I cannot say whether there is a project under consideration for Trostre, but I do know that Tata is bringing forward ideas. If the hon. Lady would like to talk to colleagues at Trostre and Tata Steel, they may well be able to share any ideas with her.

I thank the Minister for recently meeting me to discuss my two brilliant downstream steelmaking companies in Monmouthshire, CMF and STAPPERT. Can I ask him to look at their cases again? If he is meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden)—my constituency neighbour—at Llanwern, perhaps he could consult these two companies and hear exactly what their issues are.

I do not think I have a visit to Llanwern in the diary, but perhaps I will do soon enough. I am certainly happy to take another look at those cases. If there is an opportunity for my officials to have a discussion with the businesses, I would be very happy to set that up.

I recently met Littlewood Fencing, a company in my constituency that makes specialist fencing for secure and sensitive locations, and it is facing crippling increases in costs. It might be noble to try to save jobs in the steel industry, but if jobs are lost in other parts of our economy, we are not really achieving anything. It is all about the rate of change that the Government are seeking to introduce. It is clear to many Members of this House that the rate of change currently proposed is not right. Will the Minister rethink and, if necessary, pause to ensure that we do not lose jobs in constituencies like mine in order to save jobs in other parts of the country?

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the issue that we are all grappling with: how we manage the transition. I recognise the importance of the business in his constituency producing secure fencing. There is a supply chain in the UK that could support that, leading from British Steel through the wire drawers, but he is right: it is about managing the transition. Unfortunately, we have a hard stop at the end of this month, and we need to put something in place beyond that and manage it over the course of the next few years.

FMC and Dynamic Metals, both of which are in my constituency, have no alternative but to import specialist steel, because if it is not made in Britain, they cannot buy in Britain. What message does the Minister have for those businesses, and will he look at changing harmonised system codes so that customs can better distinguish between generic and specialist steels?

My hon. Friend puts her finger on a particular problem: the grouping together of various steels in the measures, which I recognise is an issue. As I have mentioned before, the quota is designed to solve the problem. I would appreciate it if she could share the issue with my officials; tonnage grade product specification is particularly helpful. It would be very helpful if she could share those details.

Like other Members, I have met businesses in my constituency that will be severely impacted by what is being proposed in agriculture, and they do not want to put additional costs on farmers, who are already struggling. In one of his earlier answers, the Minister said that the overall strategy of trying to increase steel production is progressing more slowly than he would like—I think he said it has taken seven months. How long does he think these changes are going to be in place?

There are two things there. Our steel strategy said that we had an ambition to increase domestic steel production from 30% to 50% of market share. I have mentioned that the Speciality Steel sale has been delayed by a few months, but that component of the UK steel market is not the largest part. There are about 1 million tonnes of capacity there, whereas British Steel and Tata Steel each produce about 3 million tonnes. I realise that we are talking about different grades, but to answer the hon. Lady’s specific question: the overall capacity issue is very much about those two larger companies.

I fully support the need to buy British, but companies such as Springmasters, KM Products and Accurate Laser Cutting Ltd—all of which are based in Redditch—cannot source the grade and size of steel required for their machines entirely from the UK; in fact, most comes from the EU. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of my local businesses to hear their suggestions about how we can protect local businesses but also meet the good intention of this Government to support British steel?

I am aware of the challenges for spring steel businesses. Spring steels are incredibly difficult to produce and use high quality, high value steel. They are clearly within the capability of Speciality Steel, but the business is not operating. Given the number of requests for meetings, we might do a roundtable or something similar, but there will certainly be an opportunity for my hon. Friend to speak to officials. Perhaps we can get together with the Minister for Trade.

Prototype Productions in Long Crendon, Gibbs Gears in Stoke Mandeville and Aircraft Materials in Stokenchurch are all businesses in my constituency that categorically rely on grades of steel not made here in the United Kingdom. We have heard countless examples from around the Chamber of such businesses in other parts of the country. I have heard the Minister say “if” there is a problem with quotas; I would put it to him that there quite clearly is a problem with quotas. As we approach this cliff edge, I urge him, as so many others have, to stop, pause and ensure we get this right, or jobs will be lost.

The hon. Member talks of tool steels. As I have said, this is about steels that are made or could be made in the UK. Clearly, for the steel businesses to be profitable, we need to—[Interruption.] Well, the phrase “could be made” is actually quite important, because the Speciality Steel business was unable to compete with subsidised steel coming in from China. If the Opposition say they want our steel strategy set by the Chinese Government, that would be why our steel industry is in the position it is. I am sympathetic to the calls from UK businesses to manage the transition, and I am trying to do that. Understandably, however, I do not believe that our steel strategy should be set by the Chinese Government.

Although I do not sound quite like the distinguished Minister, I did in fact grow up in Teesside in sight of the mighty Redcar works, which closed in 2015 with the loss of 2,000 jobs. The Conservative party did not stop that. Does the Minister agree that we finally have a Government acting to protect our steel industry?

As my hon. Friend knows, I very much have an emotional attachment to that plant, having worked there myself, and what he says is right. We can contrast the situation in 2015 with the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill that we are passing—opposed every step of the way by the Opposition—and the action we are taking on Speciality Steels. When the plant he refers to closed, I was in the business of looking for a buyer, and I was told by the Conservative Government that I had just 10 days; we have given months of support to Speciality Steels, and we are determined to see that process through.

North Norfolk businesses, including PSS in North Walsham, have written to me to share their concerns about these tariffs. One thing that has been raised is that there are tariffs on raw materials, but not on the import of finished and machined products. This creates a bit of a perverse incentive to move manufacturing abroad, only to then re import it and undercut British manufacturers. Has the Minister considered this unintended consequence, which could harm businesses in North Norfolk and elsewhere?

Yes, I am concerned about that. As I have said, these measures are primarily about supporting the production of steel in the UK. I do not know if this is specific to the business mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but many of the businesses we have heard about rely on supply from the EU, and that is where our discussions with the EU—linking discussions, essentially—are so critical.

While I am grateful for the Minister’s engagement, I think both he and the House are learning the dangerous domino effect that begins when we start mucking about with tariffs. I find it unbelievable that I am placed in the position, as somebody who believes in free trade, of urging him to consider consequential tariffs on the fabricated products with which businesses in my constituency are competing in a desperate attempt to hold on to at least domestic markets, given that international markets will evaporate. My question is this: he has said that he is going to review whatever emerges at the end of this process after 12 months, but the impact will be immediate, so could he please review it after one month?

The right hon. Member is quite right that there is a 12-month review. I thank him for his engagement, particularly with Stannah Stairlifts, but also for his further suggestions to me privately about how we might manage the transition. I want to reassure him that I am looking very carefully at the ideas he has raised.

To be clear about this, I think everyone in this House believes in free and fair trade, and we all wish we lived in a world where there were no tariffs. UK Steel has welcomed these measures, but has also said it would prefer it if there were not any tariffs. Unfortunately, this is the product of the world we are in. I do not think this is “mucking about with tariffs.” Essentially, we are responding to the global trading situation, and trying to ensure we have a strategy for a viable UK industry.

I call Sir John Whittingdale, who, after hearing the answer, may wish to get into the private Members’ Bills queue.

Indeed. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can Minister state what assessment he has made of the grades of steel that are simply not produced in this country? What is his message to companies such as C&M Precision Ltd in my constituency, and all those mentioned this afternoon, that face an immediate increase in their costs, because they have absolutely no alternative except to import their steel?

The Government have done a very detailed assessment of the steels that are not made and could not be made in the UK. Unfortunately, because of how the categorisations are set, some steel grades are swept up in a tariff measure along with other steels that are made in the UK. The quotas are designed to deal with that, so this is really about getting the quota level right, and that is very much part of the discussion we are having today—but I do understand the problem.

For Northern Ireland, there is both a key sovereignty question and a key economic question. Because of the iniquity of our being subject to EU law, we are already under EU tariffs when it comes to steel imports and quotas, paying 25% once we cross the quota. I have a simple question: can the Minister assure my steel importers that the writ of the United Kingdom will govern their imports, not the writ of the foreign EU?

The trade arrangements for Northern Ireland will be the same for steel as they are for anything else. I have already committed to meeting businesses in Northern Ireland, and if the hon. and learned Member has businesses in his constituency that would like to join that meeting, from my perspective they would be most welcome to join it.

We have talked about large and small businesses being affected, but my constituent Joe, who is a sales director in an SME likely to be affected, is deeply concerned about his livelihood. I have a very simple question for the Minister: if he is taking on board industry feedback, will he publish detailed information on safeguard quota allocations and anticipated utilisation rates before those measures come into place on 1 July?

The hon. Member is right to bring this conversation back to the people involved in the industry. We have had a lot of discussion about steel and quotas and so on, but this is very much about people, and about the steel communities and communities, such as those in the Black Country, where there are lots of downstream users. The Government will of course publish the details as soon as they are available, but as I have said, that is very much dependent on our concurrent negotiations with the European Union.

A specialist manufacturer in my constituency employs 26 people designing and fabricating foundation tooling systems used in piling and construction across the country. None of the steel it needs can be sourced in the UK. Can the Minister explain how a policy that taxes raw materials but exempts imports of fabricated products does anything other than make British fabricators less competitive than international rivals?

I referred to exactly that point earlier, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman could share that with the company concerned. If it needs a steel that is not made or could not be made in the UK but has been swept up because it is part of a larger product categorisation, we need feedback about the level of quota in relation to the tonnage it would normally purchase. If it is involved in piling, I imagine the tonnage could be quite high. It would be very helpful if that information could be shared with me.

The Minister has repeatedly referred to steel that “could be made” in the UK, but these tariffs come in in two weeks’ time. That is of no use to the manufacturers I have spoken to in North West Norfolk, where grade specification and volumes are simply not available. Why are the Government failing to recognise this, and why will they not guarantee that tariffs will not apply where people cannot get the steel in the UK?

Perhaps I could address the point about the phrase “could be made”, which I think is at the nub of what the hon. Member is saying. The issue here is latent capacity in the UK. Some of that steel could be made at an existing steel plant that stretches its product range, but that is not the primary concern for me. This is about latent capacity, which is where we have steel capabilities in the UK that are not operating due to unfair competition from overseas. Fundamentally, we have to make a decision to correct a market failure to ensure that those businesses are investable for the private sector and are profitable, can operate, and can deliver those products to the market.

The Minister will be aware that Northern Ireland operates a dual market economy, relying on the same supply base in GB and the Republic Ireland for structural steel sections. GB buyers are aggressively competing for the same limited pool of steel, making steel sourced from GB or imported directly from Northern Ireland substantially more expensive. How can the Minister ensure that Northern Ireland has access to safe and affordable steel when the odds are clearly stacked against us?

I want to reassure the hon. Member that I am concerned about the issue in Northern Ireland. In fact, just this morning I had a discussion about this with Short Brothers—I know he is a strong advocate of that business in this House—and I am giving careful consideration to the impact on Northern Ireland.

Bills Presented Infants, Parents and Carers Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Desmond Swayne presented a Bill to make provision about support for infants, parents and carers of infants, and prospective parents and carers, including provision relating to assessment of needs and to reporting requirements relating to such support; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 13). Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Lauren Edwards, supported by Kit Malthouse, Mr Peter Bedford, Josh Babarinde, Andrew George, Kim Leadbeater, Peter Prinsley, Dr Simon Opher, Jess Phillips, Dr Marie Tidball, Siân Berry and Liz Saville Roberts, presented a Bill to allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 14). Heritage Public Houses Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Mike Wood presented a Bill to require local authorities to maintain a register of heritage public houses in their area and to make provision in connection with the compilation and maintenance of such registers; to make provision relating to planning applications in respect of public houses on such a register; to make provision about the listing of heritage public houses; to make further provision relating to heritage public houses; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 15). Homes and Planning Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Andrew George, supported by Mr Clive Betts, Gideon Amos, Hannah Spencer, Mr Lee Dillon, Caroline Voaden, Ben Maguire, Steve Darling, Grahame Morris and Steff Aquarone, presented a Bill to make provision about the availability of social, affordable, and intermediate market homes; to make provision about the powers of local authorities and local planning authorities in relation to homes and planning; to make further provision in relation to homes and planning; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 16). First Cousins (Prohibited Relationships) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Dr Luke Evans, supported by Mr Richard Holden, Claire Coutinho and Mrs Kemi Badenoch, presented a Bill to prohibit the marriage of first cousins; to prohibit civil partnerships between first cousins; to prohibit sexual activity between first cousins; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 17). Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (No. 2) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir John Whittingdale, supported by Tom Tugendhat, Alex Sobel, Alicia Kearns, Damian Hinds, Gregory Stafford and Mims Davies, presented a Bill to make provision about the use of litigation to suppress freedom of speech.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 18). Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (Amendment) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Jessica Toale presented a Bill to make provision about domestic abuse protection orders; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 19). Emergency and Life saving Skills (Schools) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Dr Neil Shastri Hurst, supported by John Cooper, Bradley Thomas, Sarah Bool, Joe Robertson, Alison Griffiths, Lincoln Jopp and Rebecca Smith, presented a Bill to require the teaching in schools of skills relating to emergency situations, including life saving skills; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 20). Ceramics (Country of Origin Marking) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Gareth Snell, supported by Adam Jogee, Dame Karen Bradley, Leigh Ingham, Dave Robertson, David Williams and Dan Aldridge, presented a Bill to require the indication of country of origin for ceramic products; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 21). Northern Ireland Troubles (Criminal Investigations etc) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Lewis Cocking, on behalf of Lincoln Jopp, supported by David Davis, Alex Burghart, James Cartlidge, Nick Timothy, Mr Mark Francois, Jim Shannon, Ian Roome, John Cooper, Dr Neil Shastri Hurst and Katie Lam, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals relating to the circumstances in which new criminal investigations, prosecutions, inquests or inquiries in respect of Troubles related conduct carried out in Northern Ireland may be commenced; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 22). Fireworks Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Patricia Ferguson, supported by Sarah Owen, Kirsteen Sullivan, Alberto Costa, Douglas McAllister, Martin Rhodes, Dave Doogan, John Grady, Dr Zubir Ahmed, Susan Murray, Maureen Burke and Tracy Gilbert, presented a Bill to make provision about fireworks; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 23). Group based Child Sexual Offences (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Robert Jenrick, supported by Nigel Farage, Richard Tice, Lee Anderson, Sara Pochin, Danny Kruger, Andrew Rosindell and Suella Braverman, presented a Bill to make provision about the sentencing of offenders convicted of serious sexual crimes against children committed as part of a group; to require that whole life orders are the starting point for adult offenders; to require minimum terms for young adult and child offenders; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 24). Automated Online Software (Access and Transparency) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Damian Hinds, supported by Alex Davies Jones, Sir John Whittingdale, Pete Wishart, Liz Jarvis, Mr Bayo Alaba, Dame Caroline Dinenage, Simon Hoare, Jeff Smith and Vicky Foxcroft, presented a Bill to make provision about the registration of operators of specified automated online software; to make provision about duties on those operators with regard to the functions of that software, including in relation to accessing online material published by persons other than the operator; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 25). Relationships and Sex Education (Further Education Sector) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Alistair Strathern presented a Bill to make provision about relationships and sex education in the further education sector.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 26). Cancer (Reporting and Strategy) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Clive Jones, supported by Dr Scott Arthur, Helen Morgan, Mary Kelly Foy, Helen Maguire, Lee Pitcher, Charlie Maynard, Cameron Thomas, Mr Will Forster, Adam Jogee, Christine Jardine and Vikki Slade, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on performance in relation to specified targets and measures relating to cancer and to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancer; to require the Government to publish a strategy for improving cancer outcomes; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 27). Planning (Solar Power Generation) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Victoria Atkins presented a Bill to make provision about the granting of planning permission and development consent in respect of the building or installation of provision for solar power generation on agricultural land; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 28). Child like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Munira Wilson, supported by Alex Davies Jones, Dame Karen Bradley, Max Wilkinson, Jess Phillips, Damian Hinds, Jess Brown Fuller and Marie Goldman, presented a Bill to make certain acts involving child like sexual abuse dolls an offence; to make provision for the seizure and forfeiture of such items; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 29). Coastal Communities (Health) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Steff Aquarone, supported by Edward Morello, Andrew George, Rachel Gilmour, Caroline Voaden and Richard Foord, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State, in exercising functions in relation to the health service, to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities between people in coastal and inland areas; to require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a strategy for improving the health and wellbeing of coastal communities and for reducing health inequalities between people in coastal and inland areas; to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the implementation of that strategy; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 30). Hospice Funding Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Mr Paul Foster presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals relating to the funding by integrated care boards of medicines and pharmacy services for patients in hospices; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 31). Work Experience (Schools) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) David Pinto Duschinsky presented a Bill to make provision about work experience for pupils in secondary education.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 32).