Steel Trade Measure

Debate between Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and Lord Hunt of Wirral

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.