PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Steel Trade Measure - 25 June 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on our steel trade measure, which will come into force on Wednesday 1 July.

Let me start with first principles. The UK needs a strong steel sector, both in production and downstream, but the whole sector is facing an existential moment. Fifty years ago, the UK produced 27 million tonnes of steel a year, and even in 2010 we produced 12 million tonnes, but in 2024 we produced just 4 million tonnes and met just 30% of UK steel needs.

No Government can or should ever accept such a sharp decline in an industry that forms the backbone of so many other sectors, including defence. We promised that, in government, we would do two things in tandem. First, we promised to launch a steel strategy to tackle all the key issues facing the sector in the round. That strategy, which we published on 19 March, includes up to £2.5 billion of Government investment on top of the £500 million pledged for steelworks at Port Talbot, plus active support for this energy-intensive sector through the British industry supercharger. Secondly, we said that we would introduce a robust new steel trade measure that secures the future of the UK’s steel industry, to protect our ability to produce steel for defence and critical national infrastructure. Today, I will address the latter point.

Why do we need the steel trade measure? A key part of the existential threat to UK steel production is global overcapacity, a lack of transparency about international subsidies and artificially depressed global prices, all of which price UK steel out of the market. For the past eight years, UK steel production has enjoyed some protection thanks to the UK’s steel safeguard, which it inherited from the EU. That allowed us to protect categories of steel manufactured in the UK with quotas and a 25% out-of-quota tariff. That protection, which was introduced by the previous Government, was clearly not sufficient, as our steel sector has continued to suffer. In the seven years under the safeguard, up to 2024, steel production has continued to fall by 3.3 million tonnes—a stunning further 45%.

We now face a key moment. That safeguard must legally expire on 30 June, as World Trade Organisation rules firmly prevent an extension of a safeguard beyond eight years—it is precisely the same for the EU. If we put nothing in its place, our steel production sector will lose all its protection. That would not just bring our steel industry to its knees; it would kill it completely. That is why I promised the House that I would not allow a gap between the expiry of the safeguard and the implementation of our future steel trade measures. We are making good on that promise today.

There is an additional concern. Canada, the United States and the EU have already put in place similar toughened measures to protect their industries, so if we do nothing, or if we delay the introduction of new measures, we will immediately become the global dumping ground for cheap steel from across the world. Again I say: that would mean the end of UK steel production. That is why we must take similar action to the European Union, which announced its measure on 7 October last year. Earlier this year, we committed to introduce a 50% out-of-quota tariff on imported steel, and in April we published provisional quotas for several key categories of steel. This measure needs to work not just for our steel producers but for our manufacturers, who depend on steel—those who source it from the UK and those who source it from abroad. Our aim is solely to protect categories of steel that we produce in the UK, so we have deliberately excluded many categories from the measure. To be absolutely clear, nearly three quarters of UK steel imports by value, and 53% by volume, are out of scope of this measure.

Today I announce the final design of our steel trade measure, which will take effect on the same day as the measures imposed by the European Union. The total quota volume will now be 3.2 million metric tonnes. That is an increase of over 560,000 metric tonnes of steel that can be imported tariff-free compared with the provisional volumes that we announced—a significant 21% uplift. Today’s announcement includes the final quotas in each category. Having listened to Members and industry, we have increased the quotas in several instances so as more accurately to protect categories of steel that are manufactured in the UK.

Some of the changes reflect the fact that the European Union remains our largest export market for steel and that we have highly interconnected supply chains. Since we announced our measure in March, we have engaged intensively with the European Union and UK industry. We have reached a mutual outcome with the EU as a result of those discussions. On our side, we will increase the EU’s quota access from the announced 1.58 million tonnes to 2.08 million tonnes, and the EU will announce quotas under its own measure shortly.Official Report, 7 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 3WC. (Correction). That will provide stability for UK-EU steel trade from 1 July while we continue to work together to strengthen UK-EU steel trade in the longer term. We have also worked closely with our international partners, and we are committed to constructive engagement with them on our steel measure. We will continue to prioritise working with our partners to tackle overcapacity.

I want to be very honest with colleagues: there are tough trade-offs here. We are determined to ensure that steel continues to be forged and made in the UK by proud steelmaking communities across the UK—in Port Talbot, Motherwell, Scunthorpe, Sheffield and on Teesside. The Labour movement was forged in these communities, just as steel was, and we will not let them down. But we know that businesses will sometimes need to find specialised steel that we simply cannot procure in the UK. In those cases, quotas have been designed to allow for imports and to ensure continued availability for UK businesses without unnecessary additional costs. To ensure continuity within supply chains for business, we are also introducing a transitional arrangement. That means that our new trade measure will not apply to steel under contract before 14 March, and imported between 1 July and 30 September. We will conduct a review after 12 months and actively monitor implementation of the measure from day one to ensure that it operates as intended and remains responsive to emerging evidence and stakeholder feedback.

There are some who think that steel is an industry of the past. Others think that the market alone should provide—“Just buy it as cheap as you can, whatever the cost to British industry.” I could not disagree more, because I know how that script runs. We buy cheap this year and next year, and maybe for a decade. Unable to compete, our national steel industry dies in the meantime. Every single UK steel mill closes. Then suddenly, miraculously, the global price rockets up, and we have nowhere to turn because we are caught in a trap of our own making. I fully understand the concerns of those who worry about this measure, and will seek to address them, but I say to them that this is in the interests of the whole sector—producers and users alike.

Finally, I will be hosting a drop-in surgery for Members on Monday 29 June from 3.15 pm to 5 pm, where colleagues can meet with me and officials to discuss any concerns and to understand the impact of this measure on the particular businesses in their constituency. I hope that will be of convenience to Members.

I would especially like to thank my officials, including Beth Sedgwick, Malte Werner and Chris Taylor, and the wonderful Lola Oates in my private office, for all the work they have done on this. I commend this statement to the House.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

We welcome the partial U-turns that have been announced, the engagement there has been and the reflection, even at this very late hour, that the original proposals from the Government would have done great damage to British manufacturing. This decision could, however, have come months ago. If not, it could have come weeks ago, when Members of the House and businesses started raising the alarm and engaging with the Department. It took this Government—if Members can remember—more than a year and three quarters to come up with their original steel strategy, yet the industry is now expected to adjust with less than one week to go. That is not a reasonable way on which to proceed.

The Government have left untouched the 50% tariff rate, and that will do great damage to British manufacturing, house builders and those who construct the nation’s infrastructure. It will mean higher inflation, fewer jobs, fewer homes and fewer public projects. The Government have made some welcome concessions on how much steel can be brought in but conceded nothing on the rate that punishes imported steel the very moment that the quota is exceeded.

I know, as does the Minister, that he has received significant private representations from industry on this issue, particularly from defence and aerospace, and I imagine that the Minister does understand that this measure will not be enough. Of the 60 codes that we believe are relevant to aerospace and space, just two codes have been removed, and while quota uplifts have been applied, they are not particularly useful to the small-scale, high-value defence manufacturers, as commodity buyers will snap up all those quotas at the start of the year before they get a look-in.

As a result, we are, I am sad to say, putting the defence of this country at risk by imposing a shock to defence industry prices, and it will either be the Treasury or the Ministry of Defence that picks up the bill. Projects such as AUKUS, Tempest, drones and much-needed munition rearming will all be vulnerable as a consequence.

Finally, let me put some questions to the Minister on behalf of the industry. Will he commit to publishing the impact assessment on downstream steel sectors before Parliament rises for the summer? Does the Minister understand that by not exempting pre-agreed purchase contracts, which may in some cases run for years, he is damaging good, decent British manufacturing firms, even those in Rhondda and Ogmore? His exclusions rest on a test of “no production, or production paused”, but will he explain how he justifies keeping specialist grades in scope when in some industries, such as aerospace, it takes years to certify suppliers? Can he confirm that the EU’s reciprocal quota for exports from the UK will fully protect the 2.4 million tonnes of annual British exports of steel that would otherwise be at risk?

I honestly just do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands how this works—any single element of it, to be honest. Let me first address his point about the timing. I would have much preferred to give greater notice to everybody, and I worked towards being able to do so. Unfortunately, one of the key parts of the interaction is with the European Union, and we only completed our negotiations with the European Union over the last few days. I point out that the EU itself has not as yet announced its quota, either with us or for any other country, and will not do so until Monday. I wanted to bring this forward as soon as I possibly could.

The hon. Gentleman refers to U-turns. We have listened to the concerns both from specific businesses—I know that some are very pleased with some of the categories we have changed and the quotas we have increased—and from hon. Members, who have brought their concerns to the Chamber or directly to Ministers. We have tried to address as many issues as possible, but, as I said in my statement, there are difficult trade-offs here.

The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should cut the 50% tariff rate. I am not sure that is a point he has made anywhere previously, but if we had a lower tariff rate than other countries, in particular the European Union, we would—this is why I do not think he understands how any of this works—immediately become the dumping ground for all the cheap steel in the world. We would be a magnet for that and we would be exacerbating the problem for steel production that we already have in the UK.

The shadow Secretary of State raised the question of defence. I have looked carefully at this. Of course, he wrote a letter this morning that made some rather ill-founded remarks about what is likely to happen to defence. First, Sheffield Forgemasters is already providing significant amounts of UK steel precisely into the UK defence sector. When the defence investment plan is produced, I want it to deliver jobs in the UK rather than just everywhere else in the world, and I would like more of our defence industry to be based on using UK steel, because that would be a double win for us.

I note that when the previous Government were in place, they commissioned: Type 26 frigates—65% of that steel came from Sweden; Type 31 frigates—all the steel from Finland; and four Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tide-class tankers—44,000 tonnes of steel from Korea. When the Dreadnought-class nuclear ballistic submarines were commissioned by the last Government, where did the steel come from? From France! We can do far, far better than this. It is absolutely preposterous that only 30% of UK steel needs are being met by UK steel production. We need to get that number up. We have committed to getting it to 50% and that is why I am immensely supportive of the measure that we are introducing today.

I also want to make it clear that a lot of categories of steel—as I said, three quarters of the steel by value—is not in scope of the measure at all. That means it can come in and out of the UK without any tariff. Also, the 50% tariff is not on all the steel in a particular category; it is only on that above the quota. In significant areas, we have increased the quota and, for instance, in categories 4, 6, 12A and 7, which is particularly important for the defence sector, the final quotas are higher than the levels of historical trade because some of the previous quotas were not even being fully used. I am afraid that the hon. Member is wrong in nearly every single element of his analysis—and that is not the first time, is it?

Although I certainly welcome the protection of our steel industry, I remain concerned about some tariffs and quotas affecting some products. I am pleased to hear the Minister reiterate what the Industry Minister said on Wednesday: that, alongside measures to protect our industry, our Government are absolutely committed to increasing the range of products that we make in the UK. To that end, will the Minister meet me to discuss a proposal from a constituent of mine in Llanelli to open a manufacturing facility to produce steel bands, which currently have to be imported from the EU, so we can bring that production back to the UK?

That is an extremely well made point. Gun barrel manufacturing is being done in the UK again thanks to a Sheffield Forgemasters contract that has been secured. We need to bring more of these categories back into UK production. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend. She might want to come along to the surgery that I am doing on Monday afternoon with officials. If she wants to talk to me, she knows how to find me. She is absolutely right that we need to increase the total quantity of steel that we are producing in the UK, protect what we are already doing and find new areas where we can produce steel. We will never do that unless we introduce tough protections in trade measures to deal with the problem of global overcapacity.

I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Steel matters. It matters for our national security, our defence and our critical infrastructure, and it sustains jobs right across the United Kingdom. British Steel supports thousands of jobs and over a billion pounds of economic activity through its own operations and supply chain. It also underpins hundreds of thousands more jobs and several billion pounds of activity across the industries that depend on it. It has been battered by Trump’s trade war and by years of unfair practices from China.

Steel is an industry worth defending, and Liberal Democrats support that goal, but we have been vocal about our concerns regarding the impact of the Government’s proposed tariffs on downstream manufacturers. Downstream steel-using industries employ 300,000 people, including some of my Hazel Grove constituents. A blanket approach risks weakening a far larger manufacturing jobs base while doing little to protect British steel.

I am pleased that the Government have listened to our concerns and to those of industry. The quota increase and product code removals are positive steps, so I have just three questions. First, categories 14 and 27 cover specialist steels required by aerospace, defence, Formula 1 and precision engineering, which cannot be sourced domestically in the required grades and volumes. Do those categories fall within the 11 product codes that have been removed from the arrangements? Secondly, the transitional arrangements only protect contracts signed before 14 March. What protection exists for manufacturers who have signed contracts in good faith between March and today? Thirdly, the WTO process will begin in the autumn. Will the Minister confirm that any permanent tariff increases resulting from that process will not permanently lock in higher tariffs on specialist steels that cannot be sourced domestically?

I think the hon. Lady was confusing product codes and categories. If I start with 17, we have increased the quota by a significant amount. I hope that that will reflect the lack of production at the moment, which several Members have already raised with me. We have done that specifically to answer those questions. We have done likewise in category 14, stainless bars and light sections.Official Report, 7 June 2026; Vol. 789, c. 4WC.(Correction).

The hon. Lady asked about the transition arrangements. I referred to that in my statement. If she wants further details, she can come and talk to me about it on Monday. Also, I am not sure whether Minister are meant to admit this, but I did not fully understand her last question. If she wants to either grab me later or drop me a note, I will respond to her that way.

Tata Steel’s Steelpark in Wednesfield and manufacturers across Wolverhampton North East and the Black Country rely on resilient supply chains for steel. Will the Minister set out how today’s statement on increased quotas and steel under contract before 14 March will continue to back British-made steel production while giving downstream manufacturers the competitive certainty and confidence that they need?

My hon. Friend is right to defend her constituents’ interests. We have tried to meet the precise concerns that she raises. I would be happy to go through with her on Monday afternoon each of the different categories of steel that might be applicable to her area. Some people have given the impression that we are cutting all categories of steel and that nobody will be able to bring in categories of steel without being tariffed. Actually, the quotas in most areas allow for historical levels of imports, and in others areas where we produce in the UK we are trying to persuade people to buy and use British steel. That is the whole aim of the measure. We are trying to get two wins out of this. As I say, I am happy to take my hon. Friend through the various specifics in relation to individual categories, if she wants, on Monday afternoon.Official Report, 9 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 8WC. (Correction).

Hundreds of my constituents work at Scunthorpe steel, so I am obviously supportive of any action that the Government take that will protect those jobs. I also welcome the adjustments that the Minister has announced, and I agree that it is preposterous that defence contracts do not ensure that we use British steel. Surely doing that is one of the benefits of not being tied to EU procurement rules. Does he agree that it is in the Government’s gift to ensure that the industry benefits from reduced energy costs? What will the Government do to ensure that the Scunthorpe works benefit from lower energy costs in the very near future?

The hon. Member will know that we changed the rules of the supercharger in April this year, taking the support from 60% to 90% of energy costs. The point is well made about energy costs being one of the things that have made it difficult for steel over the last decade. On whether we are better being in or out of the European Union, one of the ironies is that if we were in the European Union, we would not have to be negotiating about its imposition of tariffs and quotas on us. I am not sure that that is a very good line of argument. Finally, I was pleased to see in Kyiv in January that one of the six bridges that had been destroyed by the Russians when trying to invade the city had been rebuilt—and guess where the steel was made? The United Kingdom. That is the kind of thing that we should be investing in.

My constituency has many steel fabrication businesses, some of which I visited recently. Will the Minister please outline how he listened to such businesses and their concerns before this announcement?

My officials and I have spoken a great deal to the kind of businesses that my hon. Friend is talking about—not all of them, but a large number of them—and have tried to explain that we are trying to tackle only those categories of steel that can be and are being produced in the UK. Those are the ones that we are trying to protect; as a south Wales valleys MP, like myself, he will fully understand the obvious reason for that.

That has meant that we have increased some of the quotas to allow more tariff-free imports—precisely to answer the question that some of my hon. Friend’s companies may have. If he wants to go through the specifics of the companies in his patch, I would be happy to do so. I will not have pleased everybody—in my life, I very rarely ever have. [Laughter.] I did not mean to unite the Chamber on that point. We have tried to listen where we possibly can, but there are difficult trade-offs.

The imposition of tariff barriers alone is not sufficient to address the shortcomings in our steel industry. The Minister said that it is important to provide more opportunities to help people buy British steel, but there is a difference between saying that and making it happen. He will be aware that we lack the heavy plate steel and plate rolling capability needed for building offshore wind turbines, which could be made in Port Talbot rather than having to be imported from abroad, and that specialist plate for defence applications is also limited. What are the Government doing to close those strategic capability gaps? Have they assessed whether developing a heavy plate mill at Port Talbot could help to underpin the offshore wind industry that we could build in the Celtic sea?

The hon. Member makes a good point. This is why we have a steel strategy as well as the steel trade measure, which is only part of the steel strategy. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), was in the Chamber answering an urgent question on some of these issues last week. Some of the energy issues that others have raised are key to making this happen, as is, of course, Government procurement policy. One of the first things we did when we arrived in government in 2024 was introduce a new procurement strategy in relation to steel. The very least we could do is ensure that when the Government are spending taxpayers’ money, they are spending it on British steel wherever possible.

I refer to my membership of GMB and Unite. I thank the Minister for his statement. I understand the trade-offs he referred to and the need to take measures to rebalance the sector. He knows, because we have spoken about it a lot, that the steel strategy refers to 50% of future UK-made steel being Welsh steel. Will he say a bit more about that? It is something that my constituents are particularly passionate about.

There is a very fetching photograph of my hon. Friend and me at the electric arc furnace at 7 Steel in Cardiff. It is a very impressive operation—it is a very impressive photograph—and he makes a good point. We want to get to 50% of UK steel needs being met by British-made steel; it is a very simple campaign. The sector has now been in decline for decades, and we are at a critical moment. I have heard people say, “Why can’t you just delay this measure for a few months?” That would be the end of UK production of steel—completely and utterly. We simply cannot allow that to happen, given our defence needs, infrastructure needs and, frankly, national security needs. That is why we are committed in the way that we are.

The Minister spoke about monitoring this policy from day one, but there will not be a review for 12 months. What will the monitoring comprise, and what happens if that monitoring reveals problems very early on? Will he have to wait until the review after 12 months, or will he be able to implement impacts and analysis from the monitoring?

That is a fair point. We have tried to do two things. In key areas, we want to ensure that people can maintain historical trade flows, so we need to monitor how those trade flows are progressing. We can do that with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on a regular basis. If there is a sudden spike, we may need to address it. There may be special events, like the fire in Port Talbot the other day; that has not presented the kind of problem we thought it might, so we have been able to stick with our plans. Speciality Steel, for instance, has not been able to get up and running yet, which is why we adjusted some of the codes. We always reserve the right to make a significant intervention during that period if we absolutely have to, but I want to provide industry with as much predictability as possible. That is why we are talking about a one-year review.

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the ministerial team’s engagement with Members to understand the concerns of our businesses. I have previously raised the challenges faced by downstream producers in my Black Country constituency. Pargat Housewares, which uses steel suitable for kitchenware, was facing a 60% hike in raw materials costs, and Hadley Industries is already looking to reduce headcount, which means knock-on effects in its supply chain. I welcome the increase in quotas and the removal of the majority of categories from the scope of the measure, but will the Minister explain how the Department has been and will be working with individual businesses to understand their concerns and support them going forward?

I have never known a policy area that so depends on the granular detail of individual companies and individual codes and categories of different steel. I talked to people from one business who were very concerned at the beginning of our conversation, because they thought that all their steel imports would be in scope and would be tariffed at 50%, but it turned out that the business did not actually use a category of steel that is in scope. That is why I am keen to go through the fine detail with Members where I can. My hon. Friend has raised the issue of ceramics and bakeware, and I am happy to have that conversation. If he wants to come along and talk with officials on Monday afternoon, that would be great.

I congratulate the Minister and his departmental colleagues on listening to the representations that were made. It is worth reinforcing that some 75% of steel imports are not impacted by the measure, which is good news. Does the Minister agree that the reason we are in this pickle is that the previous Administration had no steel strategy for 14 years and allowed the whole industry to collapse by 66%?

I think I am going to have to resign, because I agree with every single word of what the hon. Gentleman just said.

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and particularly the decision to remove products where there is no domestic production. That will make a real difference to specialist manufacturers in Calder Valley, but they are understandably worried about what the tariffs will mean for their businesses. Will the Minister clarify whether galvanised wire products, which I have written to the Secretary of State about, are covered by the exemption? Companies in my constituency such as Siddall & Hilton, which makes specialist fencing, cannot get UK-produced supply and therefore get inputs from the EU, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments, and I know that he has raised some of those issues with the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North. It is probably best that we go through the granular detail of the particular company’s concerns.

Let me also correct the idea of there being an exemption. There is not an exemption; it is just that we are including some categories of steel in the trade measure and not including others. As the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) just said, nearly 75%—it is actually 74%—of steel imports are not covered by the trade measure at all.

I too am grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for the flexibility they have shown so far, and I will come and see him on Monday. First, could he be a little clearer about how dynamic he will be on quotas? At first look to me and the businesses in my constituency that are concerned, some of the quotas look a bit tight. If there was a sudden spike in prices following the imposition, can he move quickly and, if so, how quickly, because obviously decisions are made with a long-term view? Secondly, he said that without these quotas the UK would become a dumping ground for cheap steel. We may well now become a dumping ground for cheap fabricated products, so what will he do on fabricated products alongside this? Thirdly, this means that the Government will collect millions of pounds from British businesses importing steel that will still import above the quota. What will happen to that money?

The last question is a clever one—that is a matter for the Chancellor, however. On fabricated steel, the right hon. Member makes a good point, which I know several people made in the urgent question last week, or whenever it was—I was in Türkiye trying to negotiate a free trade agreement with it and, in fact, talking a bit about steel as well. It is a good point, and we will look at that. I do not want to overpromise on the idea that at the moment, if there is a fluctuation in prices that we as a Government will suddenly move in and change all the quotas, because predictability and continuity are often as important for business as anything else so they know the terms under which they are operating, so I do not want to overpromise. Our main point is that we will do a review after a year, and we will engage with everybody all the way through.

So nothing will change.

The right hon. Member says from a sedentary position that nothing will change. I am just trying to moderate his expectations of change, but obviously, if there is a very significant, exceptional moment then we may need to act. The kind of thing I am talking about is speciality steel, for instance. When we started this process, we thought that it would be up and running again. It is not now, and that is one of the reasons that we have been able to change those categories’ quotas. But I do not want to give the expectation that the moment somebody experiences some concern that we will suddenly change, because in the end, as I say, there are difficult trade-offs here and we want to ensure that UK production of steel survives and grows.

I thank the Minister for his statement—he is very much the Government’s man of steel. Protecting British steelmaking capacity means we will have a reliable supply for years to come, but can the Minister confirm that this announcement is good news for downstream producers in my constituency, such as MRI Fabrications, LWC Engineering and—my favourite—the Harlow Group, all based in Harlow, for today and years to come?

If I had a bit of advice to my hon. Friend—I know he is relatively new to the House—I would not have favourites in one’s own constituency because then the other people who are not your favourites end up being very irritated with you. I have 14 rugby clubs and have to be very careful. He makes a good point. Just to deal with the individual companies, it would probably be a good idea if he came along on Monday afternoon. I am making a lot of dates, aren’t I?

I am grateful to the Minister for his statement. When the Minister came here with the statement the other day, I asked him about Thames Covers, a boat fitters in my constituency which relies on stainless steel tubing, and got lots of warm words about, “We’re going to go away and consult.” I listened to his statement today and read it in great detail. Will stainless steel tubing now not be hit by an additional 50% price, which is what its suppliers are telling it? I am seeing Thames Covers tomorrow at 2.15 pm. I would love to be able to give the business a definitive answer.

I am afraid that the hon. Member will have to come along on Monday afternoon—I do not want to give him a false or inaccurate answer now—or if he wants to grab me afterwards with officials, I will try to give him the precise answer.

I just want to make it absolutely clear because some people have gained the impression that all their steel will automatically immediately—if it is imported—be subject to 50% tariffs. I know the hon. Member understands this, but some other people have clearly misunderstood. It is only the out of quota stuff that is subject to 50% tariffs. In many categories—I am not sure about the precise category that his company uses—the quota is bigger than historical trade flows. In other words, there is no reason why it should be affected, but I do not want to give him a false impression, so I am happy to either see him at the back of the Chamber afterwards or on Monday afternoon.

I am going to change my question on the hoof based on what the Minister just said. Does he share my concern for the smaller steel fabricators that cannot buy large bulk orders of steel? They are reliant on being able to order when an order comes in for them. I have a steel fabricator in my constituency called S-FABS. It is a fifth generation business, and it is telling me that this is the hardest it has ever had it—it is worse than covid. It is not sure that it will be able to survive because overseas manufacturers will just start fabricating steel to avoid the tariffs. Can he please reflect on the effect on the small and medium-sized fabricators that currently feel like the strategy is all to protect British Steel, and they are behind that, but to the detriment of those downstream providers?

The hon. Lady is not the only person who has raised this point about fabricated steel with me, and it is one of the things that we do have to watch very closely. It is one of the things we will be looking at from day one. I cannot promise that that means we will suddenly include fabricated steel, but it is something we have to be careful of. I think only Canada has introduced a similar measure in relation to fabricated steel, but its steel measure is much tougher than ours and covers, I think, more categories. That is why it has also introduced a compensation scheme. I hope we will not need to go down that route. When some countries have suggested increasing fabricated steel, that provides a different incentive, which can be just as counterproductive, so again, there will be trade-offs in that sphere. Again, I am happy to meet her on Monday afternoon if she wants to come along.

I thank the Minister for his statement, and his clear commitment to defining the issues and making things better for us. It is a real pleasure to hear a statement with so much positivity. I want to ask a question about Northern Ireland. Will the Minister acknowledge the severe, disproportionate impact that stringent steel tariffs and red tape are having on manufacturing and emergency businesses across Northern Ireland? Will he commit to providing immediate financial mitigation or regular flexibility for Northern Ireland steel users, thereby ensuring that our foundational industries are not penalised by mainland trade policies and the complexities of the Windsor framework?

I have pages and pages on the Windsor framework in relation to this somewhere, but I have only two words on it here. Apart from anything else, part of our negotiations with the European Union had to be about how we ensure proper provision for Northern Ireland. When the EU announces its measures on Monday, I hope that the hon. Member will be pleased with where we have got to on all that. He asked about financial mitigation, which I think means compensation. I am afraid that I am not able to offer that; I want to be very straight with him.

As I say, there are trade-offs here. We need to ensure that we have a strong steel sector. I was thinking about my two grandfathers. One grandfather was a naval draughtsman and an architect on Clydeside. My other grandfather worked on the railways in the docks in Cardiff. For both of them, steel was absolutely essential. I am sure when they were working on Clydeside or in Cardiff, they would have expected all the steel to have been made in the United Kingdom. If we do not take this step today, we will find that we will not have any British Steel at all, and that is why we are keen to take the necessary and, I believe, proportionate steps that we are taking.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that in a former life, the Minister was punctilious about standards in this House, so I seek your advice as to how he may correct the record. He referred to a letter that I believe he said his office had received this morning or yesterday. In fact, the Department will have received copies of two letters, one which was sent a week ago, not on my behalf, but on behalf of hundreds of thousands of small manufacturing businesses that were desperately worried, with one week to go before the tariffs. There was a second letter on Tuesday, jointly from me and the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), again, sent on behalf of this vital industry, which keeps us all safe. I have not yet received a reply to either of those. I would not necessarily have expected to, but it would not be right for the record to reflect that he had only received the letter this morning.

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the correction. I am terribly sorry; I was only referring to the latter letter. We have had a lot of letters on this, and I appreciate that lots of Members have written to Ministers about it. We tried to respond as quickly as we could, once we had settled the final quotas. I wanted to come to the House to be clear on precisely what we have done, in order to meet some of the concerns. I do try to answer my letters as punctiliously as I can. You do not have to have been a priest in the Church of England to do that, though God is working Her purpose out, as year succeeds to year.