Category 4 Steel Imports: Tariff-free Quotas

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I will just say to the noble Lord that it was a pretty good try. First, there has been no change to India’s category 4 quota compared to the provisional quota published in April 2026. We did not negotiate quotas with any countries apart from our agreed outcome with the EU. We have been engaging with India on steel, as we have all our trading partners. Overall, quotas reflect the need to balance stronger protection for UK producers with continued access to critical inputs for downstream sectors and critical national infrastructure.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, nearly 40,000 people are involved in steel production in this country. However, 400,000 people are involved in manufacturing as a byproduct from steel. It is really important that both sides of that industry are protected. My fear is that these tariffs may actually affect badly the manufacturing side of the industry; I seek reassurance from the Minister that this will not happen.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, first, employment impacts form part of the Government’s wider assessment when determining any future steel trade measures. Our objective is to protect jobs throughout the steel supply chain, both in primary steel production and among downstream manufacturers. We continue to engage closely with producers, manufacturers and trade bodies to monitor market conditions. Where evidence suggests unintended consequences, we will continue to review the operation of the regime to ensure it remains proportionate and effective.

Unpaid Carers

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Absolutely. We recognise that carer’s allowance has not kept pace with the way that many carers now combine work and caring. The current earnings cliff edge can create uncertainty and unfair outcomes. That is why the Government have launched a call for evidence to modernise the benefit, including on whether payments should gradually taper as earnings rise. We have also increased the weekly earnings limit to £204. We want a system that supports carers to work, rather than one that penalises them for doing so.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, given that the issue of NEETs has been looked at by His Majesty’s Government, and that they will report back on Milburn’s recommendations, will the Government please look at the possibility of providing a free bus pass for young carers, particularly given that they have sometimes had to sacrifice their education to look after their loved ones? This support from the Government might be a step up for them in seeking work, training or education.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very interesting suggestion. I will take it back to the officials in my department and other departments too.

Steel Trade Measure

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

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.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

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.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

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.

UK Steel Strategy

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that there is a strong emphasis on the importance of scrap steel. The move to using some of the electric arc furnaces will increase the demand for that scrap steel in our supply chain. Our move towards the aim of getting the domestic market share back to 50% will drive much more demand for domestic scrap steel.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I add my voice to the comments that were made by the right reverend Prelate, the former Bishop of Sheffield—I remember him well and his commitment to the city—particularly on the issues around the Company of Cutlers. Its members are a tough bunch but they are fair—sometimes they speak truth to power, and often that is what is required. I will follow up on the points raised by my noble friend Lord Fox, particularly on the current turmoil in the energy market with the ongoing conflicts, first, in Ukraine and, more recently, in the Middle East. I suspect that he has been speaking to many people across the steel sector and not only in Sheffield, but I will stick to Sheffield and Stocksbridge.

There is a point to be made about the cost of energy. I understand that large energy-intensive businesses can hedge energy prices over a longer period, but a number of smaller businesses, including those with limited credit available to them, are really suffering now, leading to vulnerability and volatility as energy prices are paid either a day ahead or in the short term. I will give the Minister an example. I spoke to a steel contractor over the weekend which had an order that it was preparing for last week. All the materials and energy costs were factored in at the time and it was just about to make a profit, but after the Israeli attack on the Iranian gas field and then the Iranian attack on Qatar its gas price went up by 30%, because it did not have a great credit rating. From making a potential small profit, it is now going to incur a loss. These organisations are desperately looking for help right now—not in 2027. Can the Minister say what the Government are doing, particularly now, to help small and medium-sized businesses, or those with issues with their credit rating?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

We are still in discussions with much of the sector, explaining what the precise tariffs mean across different sub-sectors, and we are gaining feedback following the publication. We continue to work across many sub-sectors and business areas on implementing the trade measure ahead of 1 July, and we will consider what information we further publish following those consultations.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, given the extra time, can I just pose another question? Given that defence supply chains already receive special treatment in procurement and export controls, I wonder whether the Government would consider also extending that to energy policy.

I will give some examples: the right reverend Prelate will know exactly where I am going to come from. I live in Tinsley. Just down the road from me is the Meadowhall shopping centre, and just around the corner from there is Sheffield Forgemasters, where many members of my family worked from the 1970s and 1980s onwards. At the moment, when it comes to energy pricing, both those two—the commercial shopping centre and the steelworks—get priority in terms of the level. However, I want to push the Minister on whether the Government would consider prioritising defence, just as they do with other elements of defence, given that Sheffield Forgemasters and others will be working on that. If I was to speak to a couple of my steel contacts in the city, would the Minister consider an offer of a meeting, possibly on Zoom, to be able to go through some of these more technical issues with her and the department, rather than trying to do it from the Dispatch Box in your Lordships’ House?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. I will be happy to meet with the industry representatives he talks about and to explore this in more detail. As he knows, we have changed the steel procurement guidance more generally, updating it to ensure that UK-made steel is regularly considered in public projects, and we are requiring procurers to consult a digital catalogue of UK-made steel products. But, specifically in the realm of defence, I would be very happy to take that further with the noble Lord.

Children: Social Media

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Viscount makes a really good point—one I was trying to make not as eloquently earlier—that there are good reasons for children to be online. Children of all ages can benefit from being online, but appropriate protections need to be in place, protections which do not lead to unintended consequences. I think our approach, which we are putting in step by step and backing Ofcom to enforce, is the right one at this stage. We are looking very carefully at the evidence as it emerges and looking very carefully at other countries’ experience and not taking things off the table if the evidence leads us in that direction.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that parental controls and education initiatives are keeping pace with the ever-evolving risks that social media poses to our young people right now?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The role of parents and of media literacy is, of course, critical. Indeed, as technology evolves, as access changes, the department will be supporting parents and carers with media literacy. From next year, there will be some pilot projects to support families navigate the online space, particularly in critical thinking and in trying to understand misinformation, disinformation and so on. We are also working very closely with the Department for Education to establish some parental support and some parental hubs in order to support parents having some of those quite difficult conversations.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hunter, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, to her place in your Lordships’ House. We look forward to her continued public service. I also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood, in closing the debate. It is an important debate—and it is a privilege for me to contribute—on the six-month review of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025, as requested by my colleague and noble friend Lord Fox.

For me, this is not just a matter of industrial policy—it is personal. I grew up in Sheffield, the steel city. My grandfather melted the ore, my uncle rolled the slab and my father worked the lines. The clang of metal, the heat of the furnaces and the pride of skilled labour shaped my childhood. Steel is not just an abstraction to me—it is part of my family history and story. That is why I feel so strongly that the United Kingdom must retain a viable resilient steel industry. As one respected industry leader reminded me earlier this week:

“We can import most of what we need, but doing so would make us vulnerable, waste the vast quantity of scrap metal we produce each year, and send the wrong signal about Britain’s commitment to manufacturing”.


The House of Lords Library briefing makes clear that this Act was born out of urgency. When British Steel at Scunthorpe was on the brink of collapse earlier this year, the Government stepped in with emergency powers to protect our last remaining blast-furnace capacity. Those powers allowed Ministers to direct operations, secure supply chains and prevent mass redundancies. It was an extraordinary step, but it was necessary. Losing that capability would have meant losing control of a foundation industry critical to our infrastructure, defence and energy transition. Six months on, it is right that we take stock.

The Government deserve credit for acting quickly. The immediate goal of keeping the furnaces operating and safeguarding jobs was achieved. Production at Scunthorpe continues, apprenticeships have been resumed and a supply contract with Network Rail has been secured. Support has also been evident elsewhere: in Wales, with Tata’s transition plans at Port Talbot; and in South Yorkshire, where Government ownership of Sheffield Forgemasters and the stabilisation of the Liberty Steel assets have provided a vital safety net. These steps have kept the industry alive, but survival alone is not enough. We now need a clear plan for recovery, competitiveness and long-term renewal.

The truth is that the UK steel industry remains fragile. For decades, successive Governments have allowed competitor nations to erode our manufacturing base. The global market is oversupplied, prices are weak and, as we have heard, energy costs are punishing—often 20% to 25% higher here than in France or Germany. At the same time, China has used steel production as an instrument of economic power, flooding world markets and depressing prices. British producers are fighting simply to stay afloat, unable to generate the profits needed to modernise and decarbonise.

We cannot allow that cycle of decline to continue. We must now focus on the right structure for a sustainable, competitive UK steel industry. I give an example of one resolution of the current distribution of manufacturing capability that could be possible: flat production centred at Port Talbot; long production anchored at Scunthorpe; and specialist and high-grade steel concentrated in South Yorkshire, building on the expertise of Sheffield Forgemasters and the wider cluster of firms in and around the city. This balanced configuration would make the best use of regional strengths and existing infrastructure while preserving critical national capabilities.

In my own region, there is a real chance to build a coherent future. The assets at Sheffield Forgemasters, Liberty Steel and other local producers could be aligned to optimise production and share investment in technology and skills. I therefore call on the Government to establish a South Yorkshire steel task force, bringing together industry experts, local authorities, trade unions and private investors. Its job should be to develop a plan for collaboration, modernisation and growth across the cluster. Something similar could also happen around Scunthorpe and in south Wales. We have the skills, the tradition and the engineering excellence; what we need is co-ordination and commitment.

As we look beyond stabilisation, there are three key priorities that must shape government policy: competitiveness, decarbonisation and the investment environment. I start with the first, competitiveness. The single greatest burden on UK steel-makers remains energy prices, as we heard earlier. Unless industrial electricity costs are brought in line with those of our European competitors, we will never achieve a level playing field. I call on the Government to act decisively, whether through long-term pricing agreements, industrial tariffs or other measures, to ensure that energy is affordable and predictable. This is essential if the industry is to plan investment and attract private capital.

I move on to decarbonisation. Steel amounts to around 13% of the UK’s manufacturing emissions. Transitioning to cleaner processes is non- negotiable, but that shift—from blast furnaces to electric-arc furnaces and, ultimately, to hydrogen-based steel-making—requires huge upfront investment. Government support must therefore be sustained and strategic: capital grants, tax incentives and partnerships that enable the sector to innovate rather than retreat. Britain should lead the world in low-carbon steel, not watch others do it first.

In terms of investment and ownership, once stability is achieved, it is right that most of the industry should return to private ownership, with the exception of Sheffield Forgemasters, whose defence role justifies continued public ownership. However, no private investor will commit funds unless they have confidence in the policy environment. That means predictable regulations, fair trade policy, access to affordable energy and an unequivocal government signal that steel-making in Britain has a long-term future.

We must not forget the people and communities behind these furnaces. When steelworks close, it is not only a plant that closes, but a community that unravels. I know that from my own experiences, as my father lost his job in the Sheffield steel industry in the 1980s. The Government should learn from past mistakes and ensure that regional regeneration, retraining and skills investment are embedded in every stage of this transition. South Yorkshire, in particular, can become a centre for advanced and green steel technology, combining our historic expertise with the jobs of the future.

The United Kingdom produces millions of tonnes of scrap steel each year, yet we export much of it only to import finished steel back. That makes little economic or environmental sense. A modernised steel sector could turn that scrap into high-value products here at home, supporting a circular economy and reducing our dependence on volatile international markets. Retaining steel-making capability is also a matter of national resilience. From railways and shipbuilding to wind turbines and defence equipment, steel remains the silent foundation of modern life. Even if it is not made of steel, steel has almost certainly been used in its making.

The Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act gives significant powers to Ministers, including the ability to direct private operators and, in extremis, take control of assets. These powers were justified in an emergency, but they must remain temporary, transparent and proportionate. We must now move from emergency intervention to strategic renewal, from crisis management to confidence building. The respected industry leader whom I quoted at the start concluded that:

“Stabilising the UK steel industry is essential, but unless the wider environment allows manufacturers to compete globally, we will find ourselves back in crisis again”.


That warning must be heeded. We cannot keep repeating the same cycle of decline, rescue and retreat.

Steel built this nation, its bridges, its railways, its factories and its ships. It gave dignity and purpose to places such as Sheffield, Scunthorpe and Port Talbot. It can also help build the low-carbon, high-tech Britain of the future, if we choose to back it. So let us turn this six-month review into a new beginning. Let us give our steel communities the stability, investment and respect that they deserve.