The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie
Trevelyan) With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on
the Government’s final decision regarding the UK’s steel
safeguards. A strategic steel industry is of the utmost importance
to the UK, especially given the uncertain geopolitical and economic
waters that we are all charting. Trade remedies are one of the ways
that Government can protect their businesses. Trade remedies tackle
issues of...Request free trial
The Secretary of State for International Trade ()
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the
Government’s final decision regarding the UK’s steel
safeguards.
A strategic steel industry is of the utmost importance to the UK,
especially given the uncertain geopolitical and economic waters
that we are all charting. Trade remedies are one of the ways that
Government can protect their businesses. Trade remedies tackle
issues of dumping, unfair Government subsidies or, as in the case
of safeguards, give businesses time to adjust to unforeseen
increases in imports.
When we left the EU, the UK rolled over the relevant trade
remedies that were already in place. That included safeguards on
19 different categories of steel imported into the UK from the
rest of the world. Last year, the Trade Remedies Authority
reviewed those measures and recommended keeping the safeguard on
10 categories of steel and removing it on nine. On 30 June 2021,
the Government announced that they would extend the safeguard, as
recommended by the TRA, on 10 product categories of steel for
three years and remove it on four of the remaining nine, but that
they would extend the safeguard for one year on five categories
of steel to allow further time to review them.
In March this year, we passed legislation to allow the Government
to take responsibility for the conduct of transitional reviews
and reconsiderations of any transitional review. In March, I
called in the reconsideration of the steel safeguards with the
new authority. The TRA has since completed additional analysis
for my consideration. I have considered its report and findings
and have concluded that there would be serious injury, or the
threat of serious injury, to UK steel producers if the safeguards
on the five additional categories of steel were to be removed at
this time.
Given the broader national interest and significance of this
strategic UK industry and the global disruptions to energy
markets and supply chains that the UK faces, we have concluded
that it is in the UK’s economic interest to maintain these
safeguards to reduce the risk of material harm if they are not
maintained. I am therefore extending the measure on the five
steel categories for a further two years until 30 June 2024,
alongside the other 10 categories. That means that the safeguard
will remain in place on all 15 categories, updated from 1 July to
reflect recent trade flows.
The Government wish to make it clear to Parliament that the
decision to extend the safeguards on the five product categories
departs from our international legal obligations under the
relevant World Trade Organisation agreement as it relates to the
five product categories. However, from time to time, issues may
arise in which the national interest requires action to be taken
that may be in tension with normal rules or procedures.
The Government have therefore actively engaged with interested
parties—including those outside the UK—on the future of the UK
safeguard, and have listened to the concerns raised, including
the needs of the many thousands of people employed throughout our
downstream steel industry, who play a vital role in the economic
life of the UK. Throughout the investigation, downstream users of
steel have raised concerns about difficulties in sourcing some
steel products in the UK, particularly those classified under
category 12. I have listened to those concerns and am acting to
protect this vital part of the economy by increasing the tariff
rate quota on category 12A to ensure that it better reflects
trade flows.
The Government have also decided to suspend the safeguard measure
for steel goods coming from Ukraine for the next two years. The
Government are clear that we will do everything in our power to
support Ukraine’s brave fight against Russia’s unprovoked and
illegal invasion and to ensure long-term security, prosperity and
the maintenance of the world order from which we all benefit. The
Government have already removed all tariffs under the UK-Ukraine
free trade agreement to zero to support Ukraine’s economy. This
decision means that Ukrainian steel will not be subject to the
additional safeguard quotas and duty.
These are unusual times. The aftershocks of the gravest pandemic
have combined with the biggest war in Europe since 1945, the
spike in energy costs is creating huge stresses on manufacturing,
global steel markets are facing persistent overcapacity, and the
TRA’s findings provide clear evidence of serious injury or the
threat of serious injury to our UK producers. The Government have
a duty to use our democratic mandate to the greatest possible
effect to protect the interests of the British people and provide
leadership in these challenging times. On balance, we have
therefore decided that it is in the vital public interest that
the Government act to protect the steel sector, which is why we
have taken these steps.
We believe that our approach is in the public interest. The
decision has been taken collectively and with reference to the
ministerial code, noting the conflict that I have outlined. It
has been a finely balanced decision. Steel is a vital industry
for the UK and is in constant use in our everyday lives, but the
global position for steel production is challenging. The use of
unfair subsidies contributes to global overcapacity, putting
domestic industries at risk around the world, so the measures
that I am announcing today will further support our steel
industry and those who work in it. They come on the back of the
Government’s having secured an expansive removal of section 232
tariffs on imports of UK steel and aluminium products into the
USA, which came into effect earlier this month. The tariff-free
volumes that we have secured mean that UK steel and aluminium
exports to the US can return to levels not seen since before
2018.
It is important to remember that safeguards are a temporary,
short-term measure. We will continue to work with international
partners, alongside other Departments, to support our domestic
steel sector for the long term. I hope that the House will
support the Government’s stance in defending our strategically
important steel sector. I commend this statement to the
House.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
12.43pm
(Torfaen) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement and for
advance sight of it. The extension of safeguards will come as a
welcome relief to the steel sector. It is not anti-competitive to
provide a level playing field for our steel industry. I also
support the decision to exclude Ukrainian steel.
Labour backs our steel communities up and down the country. Our
steel sector is foundational for our economy; we must support it,
now and as we transition to net zero. However, it is regrettable
that resolution of the issue has once again gone to the eleventh
hour, just as it did when the present Foreign Secretary extended
the safeguards last year, and that the Secretary of State did not
even attend the Select Committee this morning to face
scrutiny.
Labour has called on the Secretary of State to extend the
safeguards, but also to change the law in advance of this latest
decision. When the same safeguards were extended last year,
Labour called on the Government to introduce emergency
legislation, which we would have supported, so that the national
interest could be invoked by Ministers in relation to Trade
Remedies Authority advice. It is too weighted towards the
interests of importers rather than those of domestic industry,
and too narrow in scope in that it does not give sufficient
weight to issues such as regional employment and support for
nationally important industries, and, indeed, the international
context for these safeguarding decisions. The United States and
the European Union have such measures, and in the case of the EU,
the World Trade Organisation has not found the extension of the
safeguards to be in breach of its rules. In short, if there is to
be a challenge at the WTO, it will be a mess entirely of the
Government’s own making.
Although, of course, I thank the Trade Remedies Authority for its
work, there are still issues with its framework.
Ministers appeared to agree with Labour’s analysis when, a year
ago, the Government announced a wider review of the Trade
Remedies Authority framework “as an urgent priority”, in the
words of the then International Trade Secretary—the present
Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk
(). Well, it has not been a
priority for Ministers. That review has disappeared into the long
grass, leaving the country in the position we are in today. Had
the review been completed, with wider factors eligible for
consideration by the TRA, the Secretary of State would be in a
much stronger position, just like other major economies that have
steel tariffs in place and have had no problems at the WTO.
Ministers knew that this issue of extending the safeguards was
coming, but they did not plan for it properly, either in terms of
our domestic law or internationally, by working with those
countries that have extended safeguards without any problems.
Let me also put on record that the last-minute rush to extend
safeguards in no way makes up for the shortcomings in support for
the steel industry from this Government, and that Labour has set
out plans to secure the industry’s future for years to come by
investing £3 billion in the transition to net zero over the next
10 years.
May I ask the Secretary of State when that wider review of the
Trade Remedies Authority framework will be completed? May I also
ask whether she intends to introduce further legislation once the
review is completed? Will she publish all the TRA papers relating
to this decision, and will she tell us what lessons have been
learned from the WTO ruling on the EU safeguards that have been
extended? Finally, can she reassure steelworkers and their
families that the framework will have been fully reformed before
this matter is considered again?
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the
statement and supporting the Government’s decision to extend the
safeguards applying to these five categories of steel, but I do
not agree with his claim that this has been done in a rush. The
statement has been made today because the rollover is to take
place on 1 July, and it was therefore appropriate to make an
announcement this week.
The right hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about the EU’s
choice to maintain the safeguards after it was found not to be in
breach of the rules. I was unable to be present at the Select
Committee this morning—frustratingly—because I was indeed dealing
with the international part of these processes as much I could. I
will continue to do so over the next few days in order to ensure
that our WTO partners and friends understand the reasons for my
decision, which I am pleased to hear is supported by the right
hon. Gentleman and the Labour party. Obviously we stand ready to
take up any concerns that WTO members may have about the
decision, but I am certain that it is the right decision,
enabling us to avoid as much harm or risk of injury to our steel
producers as we can.
The TRA, as an independent organisation, has done an excellent
job in examining the challenges faced by the industry. It is also
working apace on many issues brought to it by British companies
that have concerns, and I am pleased to see it up and running on
a daily basis. I meet its representatives regularly, but its
submissions to me are made independently, which allows me to make
my decisions more broadly.
(Scunthorpe) (Con)
Steel is of course a strategic industry, and it is worth
remembering that no one in the House or the country can go a
single day without needing to use some. I thank my right hon.
Friend and the Prime Minister for their sensible approach to this
issue. They have stood behind steel jobs in Scunthorpe, and they
have ensured that we have the right steel safeguards, just like
every other country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is
beyond any doubt that the future of the UK steel industry is
safest under a Conservative Government?
My hon. Friend is genuinely an incredible champion for her
constituency, and indeed for her steel constituents. I can tell
the House that a week does not go by without her appearing to
remind me of the importance of the Scunthorpe steelworks, and
that is a fantastic consideration. As a Conservative MP, she
never stops doing that, and her voice has been well heard as we
have reached these decisions. As she says, we do not spend a day
without using steel—I had never thought about that. It is an
integral part of our day-to-day lives, and in all the investments
we are making through the green revolution and the transport
revolutions, steel is at the core of all that. I very much hope
that this decision will ensure stability and a reduction in the
risk of injury to our fantastic steel producers in
Scunthorpe.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the Scottish National party spokesperson, .
(Motherwell and Wishaw)
(SNP)
Scotland’s whisky producers have already suffered significantly
from Trump-era tariffs of 25% and the current 100% tariff imposed
by the Indian Government. The prospect of retaliatory tariffs
from India and South Korea is alarming, especially when the
Asia-Pacific makes up a quarter of Scotland’s whisky export
markets. What is the Secretary of State doing to mitigate the
likelihood of retaliatory tariffs that will harm Scotland’s
whisky industry?
I am not going to repeat the question asked of the Deputy Prime
Minister at PMQs today, but could the reason that the Secretary
of State is sitting here be that she has managed to avoid
scrutiny in the International Trade Committee? The House has
known for weeks that the deadline for renewing steel safeguards
is tomorrow. Why have the Government waited until the dying hours
of this timeline before coming to the House with a decision? This
does not paint a picture of a long-term organisation and strategy
that is working well within the Department for International
Trade. In the light of this move, and of the prospect of
retaliatory tariffs from those countries I have already
mentioned, the Government must now move fast to ensure that the
UK can improve the level of steel exports to the EU to make up
for this. Is the Department for International Trade formulating a
plan to increase steel exports to EU markets? Finally, can I ask
the Secretary of State if she is going to speak to the Secretary
of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and look at
the price of making steel in this country? That issue has been
going on as long as I have been here—seven years—and even before
that.
I am slightly disappointed that the hon. Lady does not support
us, as she has the Liberty steelworks in her constituency. I will
repeat, because clearly I was not heard, that the reason I was
unable to make it to the International Trade Committee this
morning—we have, I hope, set a date for next week—is that I was
dealing with those international relationships and discussions
that are necessary to ensuring that WTO members understand why we
have taken this decision and will therefore choose not to bring
retaliatory charges to any other industry. It is incredibly
important that those relationships are maintained. I was at
MC12—the WTO ministerial conference—in Geneva two weeks ago,
where those relationships were building, as ever, to make sure it
was understood that we are defending our British steel interests
because of some of the imbalances across the steel sector. I very
much hope that the hon. Lady will welcome the decision we have
taken, because it will support her own constituency steelworks,
and that she will support me in the continuing work that I will
be doing at the WTO to ensure that every other member understands
why we have taken this decision.
(Penistone and Stocksbridge)
(Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend to listening to representations from
myself and other MPs representing steel industries. Extending the
safeguards like this is really great news for the steel industry,
and I know that my constituents who work for Speciality Steels in
Stocksbridge will agree. The safeguards will ensure that the UK
steel industry is protected from market-distorting practices such
as dumping, but our industry faces other disadvantages, including
unfair energy prices. Will she commit to working with colleagues
across Government to address the disadvantages affecting our UK
steel industry and making it uncompetitive?
My hon. Friend has been championing her steelworks, and we have
worked closely to understand the support needed. There are
already a number of examples of supports for the sector. Since
2013, more than £600 million of relief has been provided to the
steel industry to help with high electricity costs. The £315
million industrial energy transformation fund is also available,
and the £1 billion net zero innovation portfolio is also a really
important part of the work that we are going to do. I absolutely
hear my hon. Friend and I will continue to work with colleagues
across Government, especially the Secretary of State for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to support the steel
industry, to transform it and to take on the challenges of clean
steel, which is part of our net zero challenge.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the Chair of the Select Committee, .
(Na h-Eileanan an
Iar) (SNP)
The Secretary of State will of course know of the cross-party
fury of my Committee as regards the constant run-around, with
this morning being the tin lid. She also knows that I know that
she knew she would be making this statement at least a week ago,
which further underlines our fury, but I will leave that there.
The UK has no known trade strategy, and it cannot export the
famous prawn sandwich to any country in the world without the
same, or nearly the same, weight of bureaucratic paperwork going
with the said sandwich. Today we are here with the next move on
steel tariffs, but the only manufactured good not seeing any
tariff removal in the Australian free trade agreement on imports
and exports between the UK and Australia is UK steel. Why is
that? Did the Government drop the ball or is it because they have
no strategy to know what they are doing from one day to the
next?
I am at risk of repeating myself, but I will do so for clarity. I
was unable to make it to the Committee this morning because I was
dealing with those international relationships and having really
important conversations. Obviously I was not able to do that
until I had made a final determination as a result of those. The
information was passed to the Committee yesterday that I would
not be able to make it, once we knew that you had granted a
statement for today, Mr Speaker. That was the point at which I
was able to make a final determination, and then of course I
needed to start talking to my WTO friends and colleagues. The
timeframe is such that one thing comes from another, but we are
always at the disposal of the Chair to determine when those
statements are able to be made in the House.
(Redcar) (Con)
Seven years ago Teesside faced the single biggest event of the
industrialisation, with the collapse of the SSI steelworks and
the loss of 3,000 jobs overnight. I wish to pay tribute to my
predecessor, , for her work in trying to
prevent the closure of that plant. Since this Prime Minister took
office, the Government have stood up for our industry with
support for British steel protecting 900 jobs in Redcar and
Cleveland and extending the safeguards last year and again this
year, as we have heard today. Can I urge the Secretary of State
to continue her support for the steel sector, recognising how
crucial steel is as a strategic national asset?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I also pay tribute to his
predecessor, whom I know well and who was a great champion. We
have discussed some of the challenges that the steel industry
continues to face, and this Government are absolutely focused on
finding the right solutions for them. I am pleased that the
category 17 safeguard, which we will keep, should at least help
the steelworks in my hon. Friend’s constituency to play on a
level playing field with the products that it makes.
(Aberavon) (Lab)
This is absolutely the right decision, and it will be warmly
welcomed by steelworkers and their families in my Aberavon
constituency. Unusually for this Government, it actually complies
with international law, so the Secretary of State should be
congratulated on that as well. However, as the shadow Secretary
of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (), said, this cliff
edge—this leaving things right until the last minute—creates a
huge amount of instability for an industry that is already under
a tremendous amount of pressure. In his questions, my right hon.
Friend called on the Secretary of State to do a proper review of
the framework within which the TRA operates, so that we can have
a long-term solution to this and do not end up with the same
last-minute scramble next time. Can the Secretary of State please
set out what steps she is taking to ensure that that happens?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. I am pleased that we
have cross-party support for what I think is an incredibly
important decision that we have taken, both as a Government and I
would like to say as a country, to support our steel sector at
this challenging time for the whole market. I know that his steel
mills are busy and productive, and we want to see that
continue.
The TRA is an independent organisation, and the Government use
our powers to ask for investigations. I use the information the
TRA gives me to make determinations, on the Government’s behalf,
on what we should do. That will continue to be the case, and I am
grateful to the TRA for its work. The TRA team’s investigations
are extremely thorough, and in this case it was very comfortable
in presenting to me the indications of serious injury or
potential for serious injury. I am completely satisfied that the
TRA has, indeed, undertaken its responsibilities very effectively
in this case.
(Gainsborough) (Con)
The single greatest motor of world prosperity is free trade.
Although it is allowable to have trade remedies to deal with
unfair dumping or subsidies, they must be strictly temporary and
must be based on the clearest evidence. Will the Secretary of
State proclaim once more that this Conservative Government are
fully committed to world free trade?
It is well known that I am a champion of free trade, and I have
the extraordinary privilege of going around the world to share
the United Kingdom’s perspective on free trade and champion it in
multinational fora. This was at the heart of the discussions we
were driving forward at MC12 just two weeks ago to make sure,
exactly as my right hon. Friend says, that anticompetitive
activities such as dumping are found to be unacceptable.
Where there are domestic issues—in this case, a surge of imports
alongside the need for our steel industry to find its place after
leaving the European Union—the safeguards can run for only a
further two years. The safeguards are temporary, which is why we
will continue to work with the steel industry across the country
to make sure we support it to find solutions, especially to the
challenge of high energy use and the clean steel transformation
we want to see. As my hon. and right hon. Friends have stated,
the reality is that every part of our economy contains steel, so
we want to make sure that future generations use clean steel.
(Sheffield South East)
(Lab)
I have talked to engineering firms in my constituency such as
Tinsley Bridge and Forged Solutions in the last few days, and
they use specialist steel that has to be imported because they
cannot source it in this country. They have therefore been paying
hundreds of thousands of pounds a month between them in tariffs
imposed on those imports. The Secretary of State says she is
extending the category 12A quota to help this situation, but
these firms will still have significant costs because of the
tariffs and quotas that have been imposed. Will she agree to meet
me, the companies and the Confederation of British Metalforming
to consider how the introduction of greater flexibility could
help these companies?
I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the
specifics of those businesses in his constituency. I have met
many steel producers and downstream users, and they repeatedly
raised the category 12A issue, which is why I decided to extend
the tariff rate quota very substantially to create enough
headroom to ensure the tariff risks do not affect those
businesses. I look forward to discussing that with him more
fully.
(Wyre Forest) (Con)
The Secretary of State will understand that these very complex
issues need proper parliamentary scrutiny, and the best way to do
that is through the Select Committee process. I completely
understand her reasons for not being at the International Trade
Committee this morning. I have known her for seven years, and she
and her fellow Ministers are not shy of parliamentary scrutiny,
but there is no doubt that the relationship between the
International Trade Committee and the Department for
International Trade is not what it should be. Having been a
Minister in the Department, I know that some outstanding civil
servants work there, but it needs to be beefed up.
I am the Chairman of the Committees on Arms Export Controls,
which have a similar problem with the Department for
International Trade. We have to work hard to make sure these
relationships work well. Parliamentary scrutiny is important, and
we need to make sure we are demonstrably getting it right.
I thank my hon. Friend for his honesty. I am not known for being
shy of discussing anything, and I am always happy to do so. I was
required to be on the phone this morning to discuss urgent WTO
matters, and I very much hope to be able to attend the
International Trade Committee next week to discuss the Australia
trade deal.
I note that my hon. Friend and other members of the Committee
have raised some issues between the Committee and some of my
team. We continue to work to resolve those issues and to provide
information, at every opportunity, in as timely a manner as
possible within the confines of market sensitivity.
(Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I welcome this announcement but, as the Secretary of State says,
it just buys her some time. What will the Government do to help
the industry invest for the future, particularly at it moves to
hydrogen, and to help it with the crippling energy prices it
faces today and has faced for many years?
As the right hon. Gentleman says, the safeguards will be in place
until June 2024, and we will obviously need to act in concert
with our international partners and our domestic steel sector to
find longer-term solutions. The energy security strategy that the
Government announced a few weeks ago includes an extension and an
increase of the compensation for energy-intensive industries,
including steel, to help with the current incredibly high
electricity prices.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that, as part of the 10-point
plan set out by the Prime Minister back in 2020 and the work the
Government have continued to do to be at the forefront of solving
some of the net zero challenges, of which steel is at the heart
of so many, the Government will continue to work with the
industry to find long-term solutions both through technological
change and through developing clean steel. Hydrogen and other
potential energy solutions are currently part of that mix.
(Totnes) (Con)
I never thought that being a free trader would be such a unique
and rare position in the Conservative party. I am fully
supportive of supporting the steel industry, but not through
protectionist measures. What message does it send to Australia,
New Zealand, Singapore, Japan or any other country with which we
are signing a free trade agreement when we cite national
interests above the agreements we have signed?
We have invited the Secretary of State to come before the
International Trade Committee eight times to discuss the
Australia free trade agreement. She says she could not appear
this morning, which I accept, but guess what? We are seeing the
TRA this afternoon. Why does she not join us to discuss the
Australia agreement and these measures in full? There must be
parliamentary scrutiny, but we are not having it. When we come to
it, I urge all colleagues to reject the Australia free trade
agreement and to extend the Constitutional Reform and Governance
Act 2010 process for a further 21 days.
I am pleased to hear that the independent TRA team will be able
to discuss their work with the Committee this afternoon. I look
forward to reading the transcript.
Join us.
Sadly, I must decline the invitation as my diary precludes it
today, for pretty much the same reason as this morning. I will be
working with international partners to ensure these clear and
temporary safeguards are understood by our WTO partners and can
be used as a springboard to support our steel industry to think
about how it can transform to be important and successful
globally.
(Rotherham) (Lab)
Protecting British steel from unfair competition is, of course,
welcome, but we need more to safeguard the industry itself. Will
the Secretary of State explain what the Government are doing to
protect the sector as a whole? I am particularly interested in
Liberty Steel in my constituency, regardless of the broader
issues in the sector.
The hon. Lady, with whom I have worked on many issues, is a
doughty champion of all in her constituency, including Liberty
Steel. We will continue to work with all steel producers through
the DIT and across Government to make sure we drive forward
solutions not only on high energy prices, on which there are a
number of sources of support for the steel industry, but on
making sure we have the best steel we need, produced in the UK,
as we move towards net zero. It is a strategically crucial
industry for us. Our producers need to be able not only to
produce what our downstream users need, but to export some of the
finest steel production in the world to the rest of the world,
where it is needed. Having been able to remove the section 232
tariffs, we are now going to see some of our high-end steel
production back in the US market. That is important to the US,
because some of the stuff it imports we make here, and it needs
it. So we are going to continue to work to ensure that those
flows—imports and exports—are as they should be and are part of
the free and fair trade that the steel industry needs to
have.
(Dudley South) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s recognition of the need for
support not only for British steel producers, as a strategic
national interest, but for downstream users, such as our
world-class manufacturers and engineering firms in Dudley South.
What assessment has she made of the needs of industry in reaching
her decision today?
I have had a number of meetings with various groups of downstream
users of steel, where I have learned a great deal about all sorts
of things. What came across strongly was that category 12A was
where we had a shortage of capacity for our downstream users to
use without getting caught in the tariff framework, because we do
not produce enough of it here and so it must be imported. As I
say, we have set out the change to that tariff rate quota to
ensure—I hope—that our downstream users who want to make use of
that particular quality of steel will be able to do so without
tariff imposition.
(Stockton North) (Lab)
As the hon. Member for Redcar () acknowledged, we all know how
the Government abandoned the steel industry on Teesside and
failed to provide support in the recent past. Thousands of people
lost their jobs as a result. We are, however, being promised a
renaissance, with investment in clean green steel. News releases
and talk are cheap—where is the action?
As I mentioned, there is a £1 billion net zero innovation
portfolio, managed by the Department for Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy, in which we are seeing the thinking and the
projects coming through to help our industries move into clean
steel and the clean generation of any number of parts of our
economy, so that we can meet our net zero commitments. We have
committed to be 78% net zero by 2035—this is one of the highest
commitments in the world. That is a huge challenge and every one
of our industries needs to be involved, making changes not only
to themselves but through their supply chains, so that we can
meet that net zero challenge. We are doing that not because we
like a big industrial challenge, but because it is incredibly
important that we do it, as part of our commitment to the global
challenge to bring down our carbon dioxide emissions and because
British businesses are designing and coming up with the
innovative solutions with which we can help the rest of the world
to do it. My Department is proud of, and is championing, all that
British innovation is doing with the rest of the world to help it
meet those challenges as well.
(Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision. Many of my
constituents work at the Scunthorpe plant, and I fully endorse
the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (). However, we must
acknowledge that the industry still faces many challenges. Will
my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State give an assurance
that her Department will work with the industry to explore new
export markets, as that is vital to its future?
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, in
managing to remove the section 232 tariffs, we have opened up,
once again, the US markets for some of our specialist steel
producers. That is a really exciting and much-needed part of
those exports. As we champion all that is the best of British and
as we go around the world not only with our free trade
agreements, but in looking to unlock market access barriers and
allow British businesses to bring their goods and services to new
markets, the steel industry is going to be at the heart of so
many of those things, for the very reason that has been
mentioned: steel is in every part of our lives.
(Cardiff South and Penarth)
(Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the importance of Celsa
Steel to jobs and the economy in my constituency, to crucial
national infrastructure projects, because of the rebar it
produces, and to our construction industry. If the energy price
crisis continues or deepens, what new measures will the
Government consider taking, particularly for those
energy-intensive industries? What more is she going to do to
boost procurement? Crucially, it is that procurement chain and
those long-term orders from within the UK, using UK-made steel,
that will secure those jobs for the future.
I am afraid that I cannot give the assurance, but we have one of
the BEIS Ministers, the Under-Secretary of State for Business,
Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for North East
Derbyshire (), on the Bench, he will have heard the hon.
Gentleman’s questions and he will be happy to discuss them more
fully. We will continue to work with our industries. Of course,
procurement is interesting; it has been raised with me by many of
the downstream producers. Some of the steels needed in the
procurement contracts we do not make here. Many we do. We have
discussed at length some of the incredible work. The rebar from
his constituency is used in places such as Hinkley Point C and in
new nuclear. That will continue to be an important part of our
steel producers’ opportunities to make sure that the UK’s new
infrastructure is very well and robustly held together by British
steel.
(Dudley North) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I am sure she will
be aware that my constituency is home to several small and
medium-sized enterprises, notably engineering companies and
manufacturers supplying to the defence, automotive and offshore
wind sectors—that is increasingly the case as we move to
quadruple our offshore wind output. What steps can she take to
remove market access barriers to increase exports for this market
segment to countries such as Brazil, which has a potential 700 GW
in the near future for offshore wind?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on this. As my Department
champions opportunities for green trade exports, particularly in
the technologies and manufacturing where the UK is now genuinely
a world leader—offshore wind and others that are coming
through—we want to make sure that we have the ability to find
those routes to market for our brilliant British businesses. In
things such as the trade deal with Australia and New Zealand, we
have stripped away tariffs on green and environmental goods to
ensure that those markets can open as quickly as possible and
that we can see the best of British around the world.
(Newport East) (Lab)
As others have said, extending safeguards is, of course, a
welcome announcement, but all it does is preserve the status quo
for steelmakers such as those in my constituency. With the
potential for the targeted charging review to massively increase
network costs for steelmakers, what can this Department do, in
consultation with BEIS, to bring forward a green steel deal, in
partnership with the industry, to make sure that the UK is the
best place in the world to make steel?
The hon. Lady is a champion and the BEIS Minister on the Bench
will be happy to meet her to discuss more fully the issues that
she raises.
(North West Durham)
(Con)
North West Durham and Consett have a proud history of steelmaking
and, although the blast furnaces closed more than 40 years ago,
there are still many small manufacturers working in very high-end
specialised production. What assessment has the Secretary of
State made of the impact of the illegal Russian invasion of
Ukraine in wiping out the manufacturing of some important steel
products and the impact that has had on downstream manufacturers
in the UK, especially in terms of cobalt steel? A lot of my
constituents work in the high-end manufacturing of that for
cutting and mining equipment. If she cannot answer that
specifically now, will she write to me and, and if necessary,
meet me about it in the future?
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the details of
the particular businesses in his constituency that have found
that their markets are distorted and disturbed by the illegal
invasion of Ukraine. One reason I have decided to strip away all
restrictions on Ukrainian steel is that we want to make sure
that, as Ukraine, in due course, is able to get back up and
running in those industries, its high-quality steel has a route
to market in the UK. We wish to continue to be its champion and
supporter, and to ensure that that democracy can rebuild its
economy as quickly as possible.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
I appreciate that it is sometimes necessary in the national
interest to impose trade restrictions, but free trade is the way
to increase competition, bring down prices and raise living
standards. The fact is that energy-intensive industries in the
United Kingdom have been shedding jobs for many years now, partly
because of the energy price costs that have resulted from the
Government’s net zero policy. Does the necessity for today’s
decision not give the Government another reason to examine the
wisdom of the current net zero policy, given that the priority
for our competitors is cheap energy produced from fossil
fuel?
As I said earlier, we have provided over £600 million in
financial relief to the steel industry since 2013 to address high
electricity costs, and the recent security strategy on energy
continues to support that. This will be an issue for some time,
which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy continues to work with
all energy-intensive industries to find solutions. However, it is
absolutely right to continue pushing forwards on our net zero
agenda, because we need to have security of electricity and other
energy supplies and to move to clean energy sources as we
transition away from hydrocarbons. In that way, we will have not
only security but clean energy, and we need the rest of the world
to do the same. If we do not do these things, large parts of our
planet will no longer be habitable, because of the climate change
impacts.
(Rugby) (Con)
I want to stick with energy costs, because the biggest challenge
that steel faces as an energy-intensive industry is having far
higher energy costs than our international competitors. Will the
Secretary of State say a little more about why, as an alternative
to tariffs—which operate against Conservative free market
principles and carry the risk of retaliation—the Government have
not considered providing UK steel producers with more targeted
support to put them on a level playing field with their
competitors?
As I said, we have set that out in the strategy. My hon. Friends
in BEIS will be happy to discuss the issue in more detail if my
hon. Friend wants to raise particular industries. We will
continue to work on this issue. Importantly, we want to make sure
we move towards clean steel production, because the opportunity
to sell the finest, most innovative steels will help the industry
and the UK to be a global leader. As the Department for
International Trade champions what we do on green trade across
the world, we also want to make sure that we lead in this
sector.
(Sefton Central) (Lab)
Leaving it until the last minute to announce the renewal of
safeguards denies UK steel producers certainty. Certainty matters
if they are to secure investment, and investment matters in an
industry that is strategically important for our economic and
national security. The Secretary of State has talked a lot about
clean steel. If she wants to demonstrate that the Government
really do back investment in moving to clean steel, will she
tells us whether they will provide the certainty needed by
businesses, workers and steel communities and match Labour’s
commitment to a £3 billion green steel fund?
The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire,
will have heard that question. It is not within my purview to set
such a policy, but the Government want to continue to ensure
that, as we drive forward our net zero strategy to meet these
challenges, every part of our industrial base moves to a net zero
position, and that will involve clean steel. We will continue to
work across Government to help find those solutions in the long
term.
(Wellingborough) (Con)
My constituents work at the nearby Corby steelworks, and I see
the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon.
Friend the Member for Corby (), on the Front Bench supporting the Minister.
However, I have concerns that we have gone down the protectionism
route rather than cut energy costs. I am afraid that the
Secretary of State has mentioned net zero more times than she has
mentioned cutting energy costs. I am disappointed that we do not
have a policy of saving the steel industry. It is no good talking
about green steel in the future if we do not have an industry. I
hope that the next statement will be about cutting the energy
costs to the steel industry.
As I said, these safeguards, which will run for a further two
years, are only temporary. They were brought in because, as we
transitioned out of the EU, we brought across EU-wide
protections, to ensure a fairer balance across a global industry
in which there is over-capacity and in which some countries have
followed unfair market practices. That has provided assurance,
and it has given the industry time to rebalance and think about
how it works, so that we manage the shift in imports and exports.
As I said, I will continue to work with colleagues across
Government to help to tackle the energy challenges we see today.
The compensation scheme is obviously in place, and I know that
colleagues are happy to discuss that in more detail.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, which is very
welcome. It is critical that our manufacturing base is retained,
so does she not agree that, given the substantial increase in
transport costs, which has seen containers treble in price, the
time to help British steel is now? That being the case, will she
fund investment in new factories and plants that are built with
cutting-edge technology, so that we lessen environmental impacts
while retaining the high-quality British steel that we are famed
for in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland?
The hon. Gentleman is right, and we want to see those new,
innovative solutions coming through across the UK, including in
Northern Ireland, where we are seeing incredible growth in
innovation in a number of areas—for example, in high-end
engineering, where we continue to see real leadership as those
innovative ideas come to fruition. He is absolutely right that
the challenge of energy prices affects transport costs, as well
as many other areas for businesses, and the whole Government are
incredibly focused on finding support for business.
(Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
President Reagan once said that there is “nothing so permanent”
as a temporary Government subsidy. I therefore gently say to my
right hon. Friend that, unless we fix the underlying structural
problems, including the energy cost problem, which we have heard
about on multiple occasions, she will be coming back here in two
years’ time—and again after that, and again after that—to prolong
these measures. That will put a very serious dent in the
Conservative party’s free trade credentials.
May I, further, press my right hon. Friend on the point in her
statement that this decision has been taken with reference to the
ministerial code? Given the comments in Lord Geidt’s resignation
letter, will she please confirm that this decision is not just
“with reference to” the ministerial code but “compliant with”
it?
The Department for International Trade has had no contact with
, although I understand that,
obviously, the Prime Minister and his former adviser spoke
regularly on a number of matters. The Government have a duty to
use their democratic mandate to the greatest possible effect to
protect the interests of the British people and provide
leadership, and the balanced decision I have reached is that
today’s course of action is the right one.
To my hon. Friend’s point, these measures are only temporary and
can last only a further two years, so the challenges of solving
some of the big structural questions are closer to us than ever
before—they are not getting further away. We will continue to
work closely with the industry, so that, as these safeguards fall
away in due course, we support it to move towards becoming the
modern steel industry we all need.
(Christchurch) (Con)
May I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of all those who work
for REIDsteel, which is the largest private sector employer in
Christchurch, manufacturing and supplying steel structures across
the world? However, what will happen in two years’ time? Can she
guarantee that REIDsteel will be able to get supplies of clean
British steel in two years’ time? If not, will she not need to
abandon this net zero doctrine? What is more important than
actually being able to supply homegrown steel so that people in
Christchurch can manufacture and export their products?
My hon. Friend is a champion for his constituents, and it is
great to hear more about REIDsteel. As all downstream users look
to meet their net zero commitments and demand cleaner steel, we
will see industry changing. A healthy industry, as we see now,
has both imports and exports. We export some of our British steel
to the US for its defence industry—they do not make that
particular specialist steel themselves. As in any good business,
we are sharing our expertise with industries abroad. Equally,
there are some steels that we do not make in the UK that we
therefore import. As regards the category 12 steel safeguard, I
have decided to extend the TRQ because downstream users have been
clear to me that they need more of that steel. We do not produce
it domestically in the quantities that would meet that need, so
it is right to ensure that the balance of the market is right for
our downstream users. I look forward to seeing REIDsteel
continuing to thrive in the years ahead.
|
