(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, the Minister’s Statement and her answers seem to have completely lacked the time dimension, and I wonder why this is so. President Trump is embarking, in theory, on a huge programme of import substitution, major planning and investment for years ahead. There are some areas in which import substitution will not be possible, and others where it will take three or four years, by which time President Trump will be gone—unless he manages to wangle a third term.
Should it not be our priority to analyse and to navigate our industries through all the complexities of this? We should point out that, in some areas, the attempt to have an import substitution, if it does not succeed, may lead to an improvement in our markets and profitability. Why do we not have a proper analysis, with positive elements put forward to reassure and explain where we are going?
I thank the noble Lord for the question. Engagement with business has to be at the forefront of this. Often, we interpret this through our own lens—our own understanding and feelings about being on the receiving end of those tariffs. But for some industries, as the noble Lord rightly points out, there could be an opportunity. It is not for us to reflect our perception of these tariffs on to an industry; it is up to us to operate within industry and hear from them about the impacts on their organisations, their employees and their future strategies.
That is exactly why today’s request for input from industry is so important. There has been an ongoing engagement with industry for weeks and months in the run-up to this. We have been talking about the implications of this for business, but it has been on a hypothetical basis. We are now turning that into a far more tactical conversation. What is the consequence of what is happening? How can we, as your government, support you to navigate through this?
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberForgive me. I cannot comment further on the specifics of the Windsor arrangement in absence of the facts, but on the relationship with the EU, this Government were elected with a strong mandate to reset that and make sure that we build on the relationship we have, both with Europe and the US—I do not think this is necessarily a binary choice between the two. I suspect that when we think about the strategy particular to the steel industry, understanding what those relationships look like with the EU but also with the US, and the specifics of any tariff arrangements in place, will be a key factor of those considerations and the strategy at large. We will not be afraid to make sure that we are representing UK industries in supporting the steel industry to the best of our ability.
My Lords, the steel industry is paying much the highest electricity costs in the world, and unless we can get around that problem, we are not going to be selling steel anywhere. The Minister did not mention that. Could she say what is being done to address that part of the problem, which would not solve all the difficulties but would certainly make things less difficult than they are now?
I acknowledge that electricity and power costs within the UK are higher. In my role, as I think about investment, that is something that we need to make sure we understand and grapple with as we support stronger investment in the UK overall. With regard to the steel industry specifically, there are initiatives and schemes for high-intensity energy consumers within the UK that are valuable assets, such as the steel industry, to support them with those energy costs. However, while I acknowledge that that support is specific to the steel industry, wider UK industry as a whole really needs to understand what we can do to grapple with energy costs. On that, significant investment is under way to increase the supply of energy within the UK and the transition into cleaner energy environments. A lot of work and investment have gone into that as part of the green energy transition.