Chris McDonald
MP for Stockton North · Labour · United Kingdom
“This Bill will assist in that by ensuring that steel production is secured, helping to restore domestic production to sustainable levels and supporting the Government’s economic growth plans where the public interest test is met. The Lords amendments before us strengthen the Bill in several ways.”
“This Government are acting decisively and with purpose in the national interest, but the shadow Secretary of State is blinded by his ideological position on nationalisation. We believe that a steel industry, where necessary run by the Government and owned by the people, at least gives the opportunity to attract private sector investment.”
“I am acutely aware of the position in which the previous Government left us, with uncompetitive energy prices for industry. If he had been attentive in some of the debates we have been involved in, he would be aware of some of the measures that I have taken to address that.”
“Lords amendments 4 and 5 upgrade the parliamentary procedure relating to continuity obligations and enforcement, ensuring that Parliament has increased scrutiny of these matters.”
“I have listened carefully to the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks and those from the shadow Minister, and I will address them in a moment. I am grateful for the support of the Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), and of the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon.”
“It is a pleasure to be back in the House today to see through the final stages of this Bill. The Government support all the Lords amendments before us. I wish to pay tribute to my colleague Minister Leong for so expertly guiding the Bill through its passage in the other place.”
The complete record
Every one of 604 lines we hold for Chris McDonald, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“The Bill enables decisive action for a strategically vital industry, defending our national security and supporting our critical national infrastructure, our economy and our national interest. I therefore ask right hon. and hon. Members to support the Lords amendments before us today.”
“Lords amendments 4 and 5 upgrade the parliamentary procedure relating to continuity obligations and enforcement, ensuring that Parliament has increased scrutiny of these matters. Lords amendments 6 to 18 all relate to the appointment and role of an independent valuer and ensure that key considerations around environmental and health and safety liabilities are taken into account during any valuation exercise. A final decision on the use of the powers in the Bill has not been taken. Any decision to exercise the powers in the Bill will be subject to satisfaction of the public interest test, based on the relevant facts at the time of the decision. Steel has shaped our nation’s history, and this Bill is an opportunity to ensure its long-term success.”
“This Bill will assist in that by ensuring that steel production is secured, helping to restore domestic production to sustainable levels and supporting the Government’s economic growth plans where the public interest test is met. The Lords amendments before us strengthen the Bill in several ways. Amendment 1 ensures that the sunset power in the Bill may be extended only by increments of two years. This means that the Government would have to seek parliamentary approval at regular intervals to keep the principal transfer powers on the statute book. Lords amendments 2 and 3 place a duty on the Secretary of State to consider the costs that are likely to be associated with the exercise of the principal transfer powers, ensuring that such costs are considered in any decision making over the use of these powers.”
“It is a pleasure to be back in the House today to see through the final stages of this Bill. The Government support all the Lords amendments before us. I wish to pay tribute to my colleague Minister Leong for so expertly guiding the Bill through its passage in the other place. I also wish to place on the record my thanks for the constructive approach taken by peers to the scrutiny of the Bill during its passage through the upper House, including the constructive and careful consideration from His Majesty’s official Opposition, Liberal Democrat peers and Cross-Bench peers. I thank them for their contribution. We have a responsibility to act now to secure the future of the UK steel industry.”
“This Government are acting decisively and with purpose in the national interest, but the shadow Secretary of State is blinded by his ideological position on nationalisation. We believe that a steel industry, where necessary run by the Government and owned by the people, at least gives the opportunity to attract private sector investment. If the public interest test is met, that is the right thing to do. But if that does not convince the shadow Secretary of State, perhaps I can appeal to his sense of patriotism. I said on Second Reading that the England men’s football team had only ever won the world cup in a year when we had nationalised the steel industry. If he has any sense of duty towards our team and wishes them well, he should support nationalisation this time as well. Lords amendment 1 agreed to .”
“I am acutely aware of the position in which the previous Government left us, with uncompetitive energy prices for industry. If he had been attentive in some of the debates we have been involved in, he would be aware of some of the measures that I have taken to address that. Those include our energy-intensive scheme, increased relief on our supercharger scheme and our British industrial competitiveness scheme. I am determined to do more. On tariffs, I am not saying that making the decision on tariffs was easy, but the shadow Secretary of State would clearly throw British industry to the mercy of dumped steel on the global market. We will not make that decision. He mentions coal for coking ovens. He may be unaware that there are no coking ovens in Scunthorpe. They were closed on his watch.”
“I have listened carefully to the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks and those from the shadow Minister, and I will address them in a moment. I am grateful for the support of the Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), and of the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), both of whom are unable to speak in the debate as a result of their positions elsewhere in the House. I opened by remarking on the constructive and careful consideration that the Bill has had in the other place; it is disappointing to see that the shadow Secretary of State is not taking the same approach. I will pick up a couple of the issues he raised.”
“Great British Energy Nuclear’s SMR project could support around 3,000 peak construction jobs and many thousands more across the supply chain. As I saw for myself when I visited Rolls-Royce recently, the company and Great British Energy Nuclear are working together on developing an industrialisation strategy to strengthen British nuclear supply chains.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend, as do Great British Energy Nuclear, which has set a 70% target, and Rolls-Royce. Although we understand that these great export products, when built abroad, will necessarily have some overseas content, we need to do more to strengthen supply chains in the UK. We have a gap at tier 1 and tier 2 of the supply chain, and I am determined to work with Rolls-Royce and engage in some meaningful industrial development activity to see how we can encourage British companies to compete successfully in that part of the supply chain.”
“As the hon. Gentleman knows, I know Dounreay, Reay and the north-east of Scotland very well for personal and family reasons, and I also know how the local community relied on very good jobs at the power station for so long. This Government would be very keen to undertake more nuclear projects in Scotland. If he wishes to be helpful and persuasive on that, he really needs to address his concerns to the Scottish Government and particularly the Scottish National party, which stands in the way of Scotland realising its nuclear potential.”
“British businesses were suffering from high energy costs as a direct result of the previous Government’s policy to tie us to fossil fuels. The things that we have done—lifting the onshore wind ban, investing in offshore wind and rolling out solar and nuclear—will bring down energy costs in the long term, but we need to do something now. That is why we have increased the benefit on our supercharger scheme. We have rolled out the British industrial competitiveness scheme starting next year, but that is backdated through this year, too. We also have specific support for industries such as ceramics and chemicals.”
“My hon. Friend knows how eagerly I am anticipating the return of tin production in Cornwall—I want it just as much as him and his colleagues. I would be happy to meet him to see how South Crofty and the rest of the Cornish industry can benefit from the Government’s schemes.”
“That is exactly the reason we published our clean energy jobs plan, which identifies the demand for clean energy jobs in different parts of the country. We have also invested, through our clean energy technical excellence colleges in different parts of the country, to ensure that those skills will be available.”
“After the previous Government, the UK was left in a position of high electricity costs, both for industry and for domestic consumers, because our electricity market is dependent on the price of gas. The cheapest form of electricity we have is solar, the second cheapest is onshore wind and the third cheapest is offshore wind. That is why the Government’s clean power 2030 mission is designed specifically to give this country a strategic and competitive advantage in electricity price from the 2030s onwards. It is particularly challenging to manage the period from now to 2030, because during that period our electricity is still set to a great extent by the gas price. For economic reasons alone, and to ensure that we have a competitive business environment, we need to work through that.”
“We are determined to work with the industry to provide support with decarbonisation, and I thank all my parliamentary colleagues who have advocated for it. A number of Members raised issues relating to the design of the support scheme. My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) raised issues around eligibility, consultees and so on. I reassure them that we are determined that the scheme will have the maximum eligibility to enable firms to win support for both capital and operating expenses around their decarbonisation, and to make that decarbonisation makes sense as well. This is perhaps an opportune time to firmly put down some of the myths around Government policy pushing up the price of electricity. Of course, that is not the case at all.”
“That is why I am so determined that we will fix some of the problems with the underpinning of the business environment, not only for ceramics but for other parts of industry. So many Members mentioned the ceramic industry support scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley thanked many people involved in the creation of that scheme—our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer played such an important role—but she was not able to thank herself, so I thank her on behalf of us all. I wonder whether the scheme would have been brought forward so speedily were it not for her work. It is important to recognise the scheme as a great vote of confidence by the Government in the ceramics industry.”
“Manufacturing has now ceased at Denby Pottery, and the administrators were unable to find a buyer. My officials at the Department for Business and Trade worked diligently with the administrators to take the process forward. The Government’s priority now is to ensure that all affected workers are given the support they need. I commend Fran, Kate and Daizy and wish them every success with their new venture. I realise that my words may sound somewhat clinical to the workers and communities who are so rightly proud of Denby, so I want to take this opportunity to say how sorrowful I am that Denby has closed and that those workers, and others in the local community, can no longer work there.”
“The challenges have been exacerbated by the geopolitical instability due to the invasion of Ukraine and the conflict in the middle east, which has put pressure on our energy prices. The ceramics industry has continued to demonstrate resilience, and the people who work in the industry have demonstrated resilience, but I was very sad recently to learn of the closure of and job losses at Denby Pottery. I worked closely on that issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), and she represented the community so well in this place. There was also the closure of a tunnel kiln at Armitage Shanks. I pass on my personal sympathies to all the workers, families and local communities that were impacted by events at those firms, as well as at Royal Stafford and Heraldic Pottery.”
“Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), about the lifetime assessment of bricks. To be clear, I am very aware of the disadvantage in respect of bricks with a short lifetime assessment. I have bricks in my house that are over 200 years old and still doing sterling service. I am interested to hear more representations from Members throughout the House on that issue. We have of course talked a lot about ceramics, but my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) made a much wider point about manufacturing in her area of the east midlands. The issues facing ceramics are also faced by manufacturing industries around the country: high energy costs, the import of cheap goods and challenges with decarbonisation.”
“There is also a diverse range of subsectors: bricks, pipes, tiles and tableware, of course, and advanced technical ceramics, with many applications in sectors such as energy, defence, medical and technology. I am most grateful today for the application of ceramics in air conditioning filtration systems—I thank the industry for that. The ceramics industry is represented in some great traditional and heritage tableware. It is very much possible to value things not only for their utility but for their beauty, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher). I am quite a fan of traditional Staffordshire stoneware. I also have a very special Dunoon mug with a Union Jack on it, and I want to let those in the Public Gallery know that I use it every morning for my first cup of tea. We heard about bricks from my hon.”
“Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee): “Thank you for the £120 million —can I have some more?” To which I have a short answer: “You’re welcome—and I want to do more.” I will talk a bit about what that “more” might be, and address some of those issues, because I do recognise that more needs to be done. It is important to recognise the pride of the communities we have heard about, because the ceramics industry is integral to the history and heritage of so many communities throughout the country. Staffordshire is the home of the ceramics industry, but it spans the whole country: we heard that it includes the china clay pits in Cornwall and extends right up to communities in the north of Scotland.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate. I am sure that those observing from the Public Gallery will have seen that there is huge support in Parliament for the ceramics industry, for its communities and for its jobs. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for securing the debate, and to Hayley for organising the petition. I am sure that many of the petitioners will have been following the debate and will have heard the support for the sector from Members, as well as from Ceramics UK and the GMB trade union. There were a number of speeches on several issues, and I will endeavour to address them all, but if I could sum up the debate in one line, it was probably put most succinctly by my hon.”
“This replays some of the conversations we have had on the Floor of the House. Ultimately, it is important to remember that the prices we are quoting take into account both the capital and operating costs. Our existing gas fleet would also require renewal if it was to continue beyond the mid-2030s, so there would be a capital and operating cost element for that as well.”
“The British industrial competitiveness scheme will offer further support on advanced and technical ceramics from 2027, backdated to the current year. That will reduce electricity bills by up to £40 per megawatt hour.”
“My hon. Friend put it exactly right. We need to take both capital and operating costs into account. Fundamentally, the issue comes down to a belief or view—or, in my case, looking at the economic evidence and corporate finance. Is it possible to decarbonise and reindustrialise? Yes, of course it is, and that is precisely what the Government want to do. No one in the industry is asking us to tear up climate policy—they are using the policy to invest, and have invested £100 billion since the general election on that basis. Many people mentioned the supercharger scheme, which currently supports around 10% of the ceramics industry. Quite obviously, 10% is not 100%, but the recent uplift in the scheme to 90% compensation has benefited members.”
“When the Government decide to enter into a free trade scheme and liberalise tariffs we are always cognisant of the overall economic benefit to the country but, ultimately, we want free trade. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, asked about interaction with the Trade Remedies Authority, which is our means of correcting that. I am incredibly keen to continue to encourage the sector to engage with the Trade Remedies Authority. If there are any difficulties with that, I want to know about it.”
“However, I realise that I need to work with the brick sector and others. I am also concerned about capacity utilisation in the brick sector currently, which was mentioned by other hon. Members, because that situation, of course, makes everything much more difficult. Many people talked about international trade. I presume that all hon. Members in the room are in favour of free trade on a level playing field basis; unfair trade was what was particularly referred to. That can be an issue of energy—overseas companies having access to energy from sources that we would not use in the UK, such as Russian gas—or, as we have heard about, some have inappropriate labour practices.”
“I will continue, but I will address a point that the right hon. Gentleman raised. He focused on the parts of the sector that are unable to electrify, which I am also very concerned about. Larger brick kilns and some sanitaryware items, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield spoke about in relation to his constituency, are difficult to electrify. The main decarbonisation options on the table are hydrogen, or biogas —that was not mentioned today but it could be a solution—but it is important that businesses remain competitive and able to raise capital until such a time as those occur. I reassure the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge that I am focused on that issue. I am not pretending that processes that cannot be electrified can be, but the policy is to electrify first, where that can happen.”
“I am sure that the Government’s measures to support the business environment will also support other parts of our manufacturing sector. Just as people in the potteries are proud to be potters, so people in other manufacturing areas in the country—”
“My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. The Trade Remedies Authority recently took some steps to try to speed up and reduce the cost of the process, but I understand that it is particularly difficult in a sector such as ceramics, in which there are so many small businesses—often, that is where a trade association might have a role. I will continue to work with the sector to understand the issues and to help, encourage and support companies to take cases to the Trade Remedies Authority where they feel that there are unfair trading practices. My hon. Friend thanked me in his speech for engaging with his private Member’s Bill, which I assure him I will continue to do. The ceramics industry has faced great difficulties in the business environment, as have many of our manufacturing industries.”
“That way, we can reindustrialise, we can provide good jobs for working people and we can put pride back into working communities around the country. In the case of the ceramics industry, I am very much looking forward to working with parliamentary colleagues to ensure that it continues to be a great British industry into the future.”
“I will not detain Members for very much longer. Earlier, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned the former Prime Minister Harold Wilson and the many great things he did, one of which was his extremely strong focus on British manufacturing. The hon. Member for Lichfield talked about the opportunity we now have for reindustrialisation. Unashamedly, I lay claim to having recently introduced that word into the lexicon, and I am delighted at how quickly it has caught on. However, I hope people might follow me if I introduce a few more words: increasing British productive capacity; improving British productivity; and increasing our exports and our balance of trade to improve our manufacturing competitiveness.”
“It is in balancing those two aspects that I am currently in discussions with the trustees of both the British Coal staff superannuation scheme and the mineworkers’ pension scheme. I thank the trustees for their constructive and meaningful engagement on behalf of their members.”
“I tell that story to make clear our thankfulness, and my own thankfulness, to those who laboured in our pits, their families and their communities, for they are my family and my community. I want to be clear that every penny in their pension scheme, whether it is the mineworkers’ pension scheme or the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, is theirs by right. The withdrawal of funds by previous Governments is an historic injustice, and one that I am determined to put right with the wholehearted support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In this, I am guided by the principle that we transfer as much of the money as possible as quickly as we possibly can to those in receipt of a pension, while also ensuring that sufficient funds are available to pay future pensions.”
“I start by acknowledging the debt of gratitude that our country owes to our miners and our mining communities. I particularly wish to take this opportunity to note that this year marks the 75th anniversary of the Easington pit disaster, where on 29 May 1951, 83 men died following an underground explosion. I grew up in a mining village just down the road from Easington, and the shadow of that day hung over the community for decades. As a former member of the Easington colliery band, I remember players who were members of the band at that time telling me how they played at the funerals of all 83 men. It will be deeply sorrowful indeed at this year’s Durham miners’ gala to see the Easington colliery band and the colliery banner—no doubt with black drapes solemnly attached—process through the streets of Durham city.”
“Member for Ashfield would not have agreed with that. While he was unable to persuade his colleagues at the time, he does not need to persuade Labour Ministers in this Government, because we are determined that these historic wrongs will be righted.”
“As I have mentioned, we owe former mining communities a debt of gratitude for their contribution to national prosperity. We must acknowledge the hard work and sacrifice of coalminers who powered our country for decades. Previous Governments failed to ensure that former British Coal employees got the level of pension that they deserved. Earlier in this debate we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington, and he rightly said that in 2021 the then Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee looked at the mineworkers’ pension scheme and recommended that the Government took no further funds from the scheme, transferred the reserve to scheme members and reviewed the surplus sharing arrangements. The Conservative Government of the day declined to accept those recommendations, and I know that the hon.”
“The other half could be used to improve benefits through bonus payments. That surplus-sharing arrangement was ended in 2015, but future benefits were fixed, ensuring that pensions could be paid, with the aim of returning the reserve to Government in 2033. Since the 2015 changes, the scheme’s investments have performed well, building up a reserve of £2.3 billion. Today, there remain almost 40,000 members of the scheme, the vast majority of whom are receiving their pension. Those 40,000 cover the full spectrum of those who contributed to Britain’s mining industry, from former pit workers and supervisors to clerical staff and canteen workers. As of 2024, the average age of members of the scheme was 78, although the hon. Member for Ashfield is obviously much younger than that. The group includes 11,000 widows, with an average age of 84.”
“I thank my hon. Friend very much for his good wishes. Perhaps I can return the favour by thanking the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and for Easington (Grahame Morris), who—along with the National Union of Mineworkers and its general secretary, Chris Kitchen—have been diligent representatives of the mineworkers, their families and their communities. When British Coal was privatised in 1994, the British Coal staff superannuation scheme closed to the accrual of benefits, and remaining employees were given the right to participate in successor schemes. The Government of the day gave the mineworkers a guarantee that the value of the fund would not decrease, ensuring that pensions would continue to be paid while taking half of any surplus on the investment.”
“My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, and it fits very much with the point I was making about the age profile. I assure her that I am acutely aware of how many miners, miners’ widows and other coal workers are dying every day and every week not in receipt of their pension entitlements. That is why I proceeded as quickly as I could with the initial arrangements for the British Coal staff superannuation scheme last autumn. With the co-operation of the trustees, we are proceeding at pace on both schemes.”
“That is direct support for pensioners and local communities that powered our country for decades. I am clear, however, that there is still more to do. The Government are discussing proposals for future arrangements for the scheme, including the potential for future surpluses to be used to enhance the benefits for the trustees. The hon. Member for Ashfield asked me if I would commit to working with the trustees, and I can tell him simply: I will, and I am. On timing, he asked me whether the decision will be made at the Budget. I of course leave decisions at the Budget to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but she is incredibly supportive of the work that I am doing, and I place on the record her support for me in my work and for mining communities.”
“Yes, I will say more about the work I am doing with the trustees and the timing, as my hon. Friend rightly requests. The Government are implementing the recommendations of the BEIS Committee report from 2021 in respect of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme and the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and we continue to provide a guarantee to the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, ensuring that scheme members’ pensions will always be paid after retirement. We have transferred the £2.3 billion reserve within the scheme for use as a bonus pension. This led to a 41% increase in pension incomes last December, backdated to November 2024. On average, that meant an extra £100 a week for scheme members, and I know that money will be spent in coalmining communities.”
“Like my hon. Friend, I sincerely hope that these changes will permanently right the wrongs. It is important that we think carefully about moving as much money as possible out of the scheme, but also ensuring that there are sufficient funds to pay existing pensions. Let me briefly raise the issue of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. The Government are taking a similar approach to both schemes. In 2024 they transferred the mineworkers pension scheme reserve, increasing pensions by 32%, but I want to reassure members of that scheme that I am also considering proposals for future arrangements put forward by their trustees. Those proposals could further enhance members’ benefits, and we are seeking to do that as swiftly as possible, while also managing the future funding risks.”
“I shall be there, playing in the cathedral with my band, and I thought that this might be a suitable moment for us to mark the Easington pit disaster ourselves, here in the House. So I simply say to Members: “Remember before God the Durham miners who have given their lives in the pits of this county”. Question put and agreed to.”
“I will take forward the proposals from the trustees, which I hope will further enhance members’ benefits. I want to reassure my hon. Friend, and other members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, that my top priority is to reach agreement on how best to enhance these pensions as swiftly as possible, so that we can get that funding into the pockets of scheme members. I opened my speech with some words about the Easington colliery disaster, and I mentioned the Durham miners gala. There is a miners memorial in Durham cathedral, and the words on that memorial are sung by the cathedral choir at the miners festival service on gala day every year, as they will be this year, in a few weeks’ time.”
“I am extremely pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that issue, because I know that it concerns members of, particularly, the mineworkers’ pension scheme and people in those communities. I want to reassure members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme that I am endeavouring to ensure that we get as much money out of the scheme as possible. The issue of equality does concern me. However, I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that in the case of both schemes my aim has been to move as much money out as possible, as quickly as possible, for all those members. I do not see this as a divisive issue between two parts of the mining community, because ultimately both parts of the mining community, whichever scheme they were in, were disadvantaged by Governments of the time.”
“We are listening carefully to companies throughout the supply chain as we finalise the measure. We have introduced a transitional arrangement; the new measure will not apply to goods under contract before 14 March 2026 and imported between 1 July and 30 September 2026. We have introduced a carry-over mechanism to give importers more flexibility. We will review the measure after 12 months to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. We are also engaging intensively with the European Commission on our respective steel measures, and are working to find a bilateral solution that protects vital UK-EU steel trade. This engagement reflects the unique structure of our trading and security relationships and the interconnectedness of our supply chains, but we need to be clear: if we do not act, we will not have steel-making in the UK.”
“Steel is essential for advanced manufacturing and engineering, and the interests of the domestic steel sector and downstream industry are best served together. A thriving steel industry strengthens supply chain resilience for downstream businesses and limits their exposure to global supply shocks. We need to balance the need to protect domestic steelmaking with maintaining secure, reliable supply chains for downstream businesses. Imports will remain important. The Government have engaged extensively with businesses across a range of sectors, including manufacturing, when developing this measure. Indeed, last week, I held a roundtable with downstream industry, together with my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. We, and the Secretary of State, also heard from several colleagues about the concerns of businesses in their constituencies.”
“May I start by giving the apologies of the Minister for Trade, who is in Turkey, negotiating further trade deals for British industry? On 19 March, the Government set out the UK’s plan to introduce a robust new trade measure from 1 July. It will limit tariff-free steel imports, as compared with the steel safeguard measure. Any imports above the levels in the measure will face a 50% tariff. Protecting primary steel production is crucial to the UK’s critical national infrastructure and defence. That is why we have published a long-term plan for steel and are introducing a new trade measure countering the unprecedented and damaging effect of global overcapacity. It is simply wrong that only 30% of the steel that we need in the UK is made in the UK.”
“The Minister for Trade and I have met the downstream group on three occasions, and I have met the Aerospace Growth Partnership, the Construction Leadership Council and many other businesses. We will be publishing our final measures in line with our EU negotiations when they are completed, in time for 1 July.”