PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Speciality Steel UK - 14 September 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, I shall make a statement on Speciality Steel UK, but before I do so, I would like to say that I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with the Prime Minister following the passing of his father Roy earlier today.

The workers at Speciality Steel UK have faced years of uncertainty. The plants have been mothballed and the jobs furloughed for several years. This outrageous situation is a monument to years of neglect by successive Conservative Governments who let this industry decline, but this Government and I have taken a different approach. We have done all we can to rebuild the sector, and we have confronted its challenges head-on. In the case of Speciality Steel, complex ownership structures and opaque financing arrangements have amplified the headwinds of the wider sector. I do not need to remind the House about this case’s links to a prominent ongoing corporate scandal involving a former Conservative Prime Minister.

As the House may recall, Speciality Steel UK entered liquidation in August last year, with the independent court-appointed official receiver managing the liquidation process. Since then, the Government have provided funding to enable the official receiver to carry out his statutory duties, including maintaining site safety, supporting employees and conducting a sales process for the business and its assets. Throughout that period, our priority has been facilitating a private sector solution. The official receiver engaged with a range of interested parties and earlier this year identified a preferred bidder. That bidder subsequently requested Government support to make its purchase of Speciality Steel UK possible. However, following extensive engagement between the bidder and its advisers, and having done all the due diligence and given the case the consideration that taxpayers would expect, the Government have decided that they cannot provide support on the proposed terms.

This decision has not been taken lightly. For over a year, we have funded the official receiver process, while working constructively on efforts to secure a private buyer. We took a long, hard look at the offer that was on the table, but the truth is that we had serious concerns about the proposed financing of it, the protections for UK taxpayers, and whether it could offer long-term stability for the local economy and community. Having concluded that we cannot support the preferred bidder’s proposal, we are faced with a choice: we can allow events to take their course through the liquidation process, and risk being left with no say in the future of the sites, or we can act. This Government choose to act.

We have made a commitment to reindustrialise Britain—to bring good growth to every postcode of our country. Backing the proud communities of Stocksbridge, Rotherham, Wednesbury and Brinsworth is absolutely part of that commitment. These workers and those across the wider business have endured a prolonged period of uncertainty. The Government cannot accept the prospect of another prolonged process that will create more worry and anxiety for workers, deter businesses and hang over the local community. Nor can we accept a situation in which decisions impacting the future of communities in South Yorkshire are effectively taken by default, rather than through a deliberate assessment of what will best support growth, opportunity and prosperity in the years ahead.

We will therefore engage with the official receiver’s sale process and develop a proposal for the public acquisition of SSUK. This will preserve strategic control and ensure that all credible future opportunities can be properly considered before irreversible decisions are taken. We are taking this step because SSUK occupies a unique place in the UK’s steel ecosystem. It offers specialist capabilities that have served advanced manufacturing supply chains, including in aerospace and defence. In other words, it is capable of supplying the growth-driving sectors of our economy—those that we have committed to supporting through our industrial strategy. SSUK’s strategic value extends well beyond its economic contribution. It lies in its specialist steelmaking capabilities, which have historically produced products like aircraft landing gear, helicopter rotors, missiles and munitions. It would not be right to let this go by default.

I want to make an important clarifying point: we will work towards public acquisition, but that is not the end of the process, or the end of the conversation about the long-term future of the business and its sites. It means that we are keeping our options open while Government, local leaders, industry experts, private investors, workers and other partners consider what is best for these strategically important locations.

I want to thank those Members of this House with SSUK sites in their constituencies for their engagement with my Department, and I welcome their continued input. That includes my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), and my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), and for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). I recognise the role played by the Mayor of South Yorkshire, Oliver Coppard, and his team in ensuring a joined-up vision for the future of South Yorkshire. I welcome the work that I know we will do in lockstep to deliver this future.

Working towards public acquisition will create the time and space necessary for undertaking a full assessment of the opportunities available. It will let us consider future industrial use, regeneration opportunities and the role that specialist manufacturing capabilities could play in supporting growth and our national resilience. One option that will be assessed carefully is the future of speciality steel production. However, we are not prejudging the outcome of that assessment. All options will be considered rigorously against their economic and industrial benefits, their impact on regional growth and their value for money. I should note that all future decisions and spending commitments will be subject to detailed due diligence and funded from existing Government budgets.

Our announcement today must also be seen in the wider context of the Government’s commitment to the future of the British steel industry. Steel remains fundamental to our economy, our infrastructure, our energy system, our advanced manufacturing base and our national security. It underpins critical supply chains and supports thousands of skilled jobs across the United Kingdom. That is why we nationalised British Steel earlier this year; why we intervened to secure stability and maintain production at the site while we develop long-term options; and why we secured a better deal for the steel communities of south Wales, with £500 million of Government support for a new electric arc furnace at Port Talbot.

In our steel strategy, we committed to stabilising and rebuilding the steel sector. What is more, we set out a goal of supporting productive and profitable steel producers that can meet their customers’ needs, strengthen our national security and provide high-quality, secure, long-term jobs, backed by private investment. That was not an empty promise or wishful thinking. We have acted to tackle the challenge posed by global steel overcapacity through trade measures that protect our domestic production from unfair pressure and support the viability of the nation’s steelmaking.

I want to speak directly to the workers of Speciality Steel UK, who have been stuck on furlough, unable to do the jobs of which they are so rightly proud, through no fault of their own. I know that they feel ignored and let down by previous Governments, but as Business Secretary, I will not duck these difficult decisions, and neither will this Government. I will do all that I can to secure a bright future for you, your communities and your families.

Taken together, these actions demonstrate that this Government are serious about reindustrialising Britain, and the steel sector playing its part. We want to attract private investment, strengthen domestic supply chains and ensure that industrial communities have a genuine opportunity to thrive in the decades ahead. That is why we are moving towards the public acquisition of Speciality Steel UK. As ever, I commit to keeping all Members informed as this important work progresses. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

On behalf of Conservative Members, I send my thoughts to the Prime Minister, following the tragic passing of his father.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. In her statement to the House following the insolvency of Speciality Steel UK in September last year, the then Minister for Industry, the hon. Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), stated that the Government would pursue every avenue to keep the company’s sites producing, as part of the Government’s wider work to grow a resilient domestic steel industry. We can all agree that the compulsory winding-up order against Liberty Speciality Steels created a great deal of uncertainty, especially for the more than 1,000 workers employed there. I am keen to hear how the Government have kept their promise to stand by the entire workforce throughout this process, including while overseeing bids to sell former assets. Will any redundancies follow nationalisation?

However, continuous operational failures have already pushed businesses into a state of chronic uncertainty; a failure to file accounts for more than six years led to a separate prosecution by Companies House, and there was an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into suspected fraud, fraudulent trading and money laundering. The Secretary of State said that the official receiver wanted to gain a better understanding of the company’s business and the conduct of its directors in the period leading up to the liquidation. Can he give an update on any investigations into conduct that the Government have undertaken, and on any steps taken to recover money belonging either to the business or to the British taxpayer?

Despite the rhetoric about the Government supporting the UK steel industry, all that the industry has experienced is increased pressure and apprehension. From the steel strategy, which is likely to lead to ever higher costs for taxpayers, to the introduction of the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, which fatally weakens our national resilience, the survivability of steel producers is becoming more difficult. Indeed, a manufacturer in my constituency told me some months ago that it will likely dissolve by Christmas if the Government do not change course.

Energy prices are also a significant hurdle for steel plants. The Government’s Clean Power 2030 action plan risks making things worse; it could force rapid change without ensuring the infrastructure or investment to support it, while increasing costs for manufacturers and threatening jobs in key industrial communities. Nearly 92% of global steel production faces no comparable carbon pricing. Only the UK, the EU, Canada and New Zealand, covering just 8% of global output, apply prices in the £30 to £70 per tonne range, but we expect our industry to compete with countries that pay a fraction of that, or nothing at all.

The Secretary of State will say that the Government are helping to address the burden of high bills for manufacturers via the British industrial competitiveness scheme, but unfortunately their efforts are too little, too late. Having a strong steel industry is vital to our national security and resilience. Traditional bulk commodity steelmaking is vital to our national infrastructure, and modern advanced steel manufacturing is a vital foundation for sectors such as aerospace, defence, nuclear and automotive, all of which are critical, given rising geopolitical tensions. I understand that another issue facing Speciality Steel UK was having the capital to buy raw materials that would allow the continued production of advanced steels, such as the landing gears produced at Stocksbridge. Could the Government therefore outline what support has been given to maintain site operation through this process, and whether advanced steel manufacturing will be a priority following nationalisation?

Circling back to the Government’s commitment to pursue every avenue, can the Minister explain how much consideration has been given to private investment as a solution? How much was spent on private sector solutions before the decision to nationalise, and what was the main basis for that decision? Considering that a preferred bidder had been identified, it is surprising that the Government have moved away from this completely. Indeed, at the Business and Trade Committee on 22 June, the Department’s director for materials and industry noted that “significant investment” was required, and stressed that the majority of this should come from the private sector. Other than a new Prime Minister who is ideologically committed to nationalisation, what has changed? Will the Minister outline the terms asked for by the private bidder that the Government were not willing to agree to? If the business has unique capabilities and demand is there for its products, does that not imply that the barrier to a viable private sector buyer is either the Government’s own ideological obsession with nationalisation, or an economic climate in which it is increasingly impossible to run a successful manufacturing business in Britain?

I thank the shadow Minister for his response. I particularly appreciate his words for the Prime Minister, which I know he will appreciate, as will his family.

The shadow Minister began with a long list of neglect regarding the policy, operations and ownership of this particular set of steel businesses. The obvious question is why the Conservatives did not do anything about it when they were in power—it certainly was not for want of requests to act from Labour Members. He has asked for reassurances about the workforce, and I am happy to give those to him. The cost of funding the official receiver, both to date and ongoing, is essentially the wages of the staff. They are in a position where they will be paid, which is paramount.

The shadow Minister talked about the business environment. I say politely to all Conservative colleagues that they left us with the highest industrial energy prices in the developed world. That was the legacy—it is not due to any policy changes made by Labour. What do our industrial subsidies mean? For a sector such as steel, where an electric arc furnace is obviously incredibly energy intensive, the supercharger package—not the BICS package, because the supercharger package applies in this case—will bring down average electricity prices from approximately £168 per megawatt-hour to £86 per megawatt-hour. It is not just about being competitive with peers; that is a genuinely competitive position with our rivals. We introduced those subsidies because we were aware that the business environment we inherited from the Conservative party was not satisfactory. We had to act, which is why we have done so.

Turning to wider measures, yes, we have activated a substantial trade defence policy. That is not just about maintaining domestic production; it is about being a country where the rules of the game apply. If we want people to be based here in the UK, they have to be able to take advantage of effective trade remedies when they are facing unfair competition. I know that that is an issue for the downstream users, but it is the position that I think the country has to take. What the shadow Minister has said about carbon border adjustment mechanisms is, I think, a new policy since I was last Secretary of State—the Conservatives are perhaps disowning the policies they had at the end of the last Government, because they were certainly committed to CBAMs then. Of course, CBAMs are fundamentally about trying to maintain fair competition between carbon-intensive sectors in developed countries such as ours and the rest of the world, so there is a little bit of incoherence there, to say the least.

On the issue of working capital, the opportunity presented to us by Speciality Steel UK is that previously, the business only produced when the customer effectively supplied working capital—a highly irregular position, but one reflective of the opaque and byzantine financing arrangements under the previous owners. I believe the opportunity exists to operate a successful business in this space. There is nothing ideological about this; my ideal is for the business to be run in the private sector. The shadow Minister has asked why we could not take forward the preferred bidder. I will not go into the details, but when I come to this Dispatch Box I have to be satisfied that any public support given meets the reasonable conditions we would expect, such as that taxpayer money will be protected and will not be spent without delivering the outcome for which it has been granted. If I cannot do that, I cannot grant that subsidy, which I think is the position any Secretary of State would have to take.

What is the barrier to a private sector solution? Effectively, it is risk—the fact that this was left so long without activity from the Conservative Government and the workforce have not been making steel. The customers are therefore in a position where that is a big, substantial challenge for any private sector entity to take on. If we do end up with a public ownership position, I think the state will be better able to take on that challenge, but it is the legacy of neglect that has been the barrier. That is exactly what this Government are determined to resolve.

Today is a really good day. I have been in this Chamber for more than a decade, watching my industry being allowed to wither on the vine. Secretary of State, a huge thank you to you for understanding the potential in the Rotherham, Brinsworth, and Stocksbridge sites, which work hand in hand. It is not just about the sites themselves, but the infrastructure around them. We have a whole supply chain that needs these sites back and running again. Of course, this is green steel, or recycled steel, so it fits exactly with the Government’s industrial strategy—it is the linchpin.

Secretary of State, thank you for continuing the pay so far and thank you for committing to continue it for the next six months. Can he also speak a little about the training that the staff will get? While they are grateful to be furloughed, they want to be working, and that means that they need to be fit the day that he says we can open the doors. They want to be ready to go. Can he also say a little about product accreditation? Literally every week, I have people from around the country calling in, trying to purchase steel. However, to purchase it, accreditation needs to be in place. Finally, can he speak a little about any anticipated restart costs? I know the workers are doing all they can to maintain the sites, but there are likely to be costs. Today is a good day, and I thank the Secretary of State.

Order. Can all Members look at the Chair when speaking? Sometimes we cannot hear what is said. Also, the Member is not addressing the Secretary of State, but the Chair. It will help us all if we do it that way.

I thank my hon. Friend for her engagement, her support and her advocacy on behalf of her constituents. This has been and is a difficult situation for them, and it is exactly because of our commitment that we are seeking to resolve things in a favourable way. The work we can now do will have to look at the capacities, the potential for new investment that might be required, the product lines, where the customers are and so forth. The key issue—I am not sure if this has ever been put on the record in Hansard before—is homologation. That is the assets of these sites and the accreditations they have for such a speciality set of products. Those assets are incredibly valuable. Not many parts of the world can produce to the standard that we are talking about. We now have a process—I want that to be as short as possible—where we can assess that. I will remain in close contact with her. I want to be in a position where, if we can take this forward, we can pass that good news on to her constituents.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

First, may I pass on my condolences and those of my party to the Prime Minister on the sad passing of his father? I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We Liberal Democrats recognise that national security, energy security and food security are all intertwined. Steel is critical to our renewables sector, our defence and our national infrastructure. In a previous debate on this company, we said on the record that nothing should be off the table, and we look forward to receiving further details from the Secretary of State as the process continues.

I have a few questions for the Secretary of State. First, on jobs and the employees, can he offer any further information not just on training, as another hon. Member has raised, but on the timeline by which staff will have more information about what this decision means for them? The Secretary of State highlighted that this process may end up in public acquisition. Is he in a position to say how much that would likely cost the taxpayer? Can he give us a broad estimate or range for how much those costs might be? Related to that, I note that the Secretary of State said that it would be funded through existing budgets. Can he say where that money might come from and whether it might get rediverted from other sources of funding, such as for transport, energy projects or something else?

I have two final questions. We know that the warning lights were flashing for a very long time—the Secretary of State mentioned that himself. Will there be any formal process to look at the lessons learned, both politically and administratively, to make sure that something like this never happens again? Finally, he will know that as well as using domestic steel suppliers for our British procurement, the way to really boost British industry is to have a stronger relationship with Europe, so that British steel can be used throughout supply chains and procurement right across Europe. Will the Government look at strengthening that relationship?

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I entirely endorse what she said about the centrality of steel to security and infrastructure, and, indeed, I echo her words. This is entirely pragmatic. I am seeking to resolve a series of long-running problems, which a great many of my Conservative predecessors—and there were a great many—ignored, considering them to be too difficult. That is the central lesson that I would learn: we have to be willing to confront these hard problems. We might think that we can pass them on to the next person, but that is not serving the country in the way that is required.

Let me now deal with the hon. Lady’s specific questions. I expect this process to take between four and six months, but I want it to be resolved as quickly as possible. I think it important to point out that there are costs either way: there are costs involved in running the business in public ownership, and there would also be costs to the state from the remediation and regeneration, partly because of the legacy of public ownership but also because such big steel industrial sites come with so many issues to resolve if they are remediated that some of that would fall on the Exchequer. If this were a matter of public ownership, we would have to pay off the creditors, reach an accommodation with them, acquire the assets, and then inject some working capital over a period of between one and three years. I would expect the cost of that to be about £350 million, and I would expect something comparable were the option to be regeneration and remediation.

The hon. Lady asked about existing budgets. We knew when we came to power that we needed to pay attention to the steel industry. There was a commitment in our manifesto for £2.5 billion, on top of on top of the £500 million that was granted to Tata in Port Talbot under the previous Government. We have spent some of that, although the lion's share of the sum has gone to British Steel, but the support for Tata has continued. Some of the money has gone on the official receiver process here. We have that existing budget in which to commence this work. These are obviously significant assets, and I think that this is an entirely appropriate use of them.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the relationship with Europe. She will know that when the European Union changed its own trade defence measures on steel, that had some adverse consequences for us. My call to Commissioner Šefčovič was one of my first in the job, for a number of reasons. We talked explicitly about this, and are seeking a resolution specifically on steel, which I believe would be in our interests and those of the European Union.

I welcome the direction that the Secretary of State has set out today. Wednesbury Bright Bar is part of Speciality Steel UK. It is a specialist steel-finishing plant that produces precision-engineered bright steel bar in the heart of the UK metal-finishing industry area. It is used for automotive and advanced manufacturing across the Black Country and beyond. This is not primary steel production, and it will need a clear strategy separate from that for the primary steel production, which is the business in Rotherham, in Stocksbridge and elsewhere in the country. What specific consideration will the Secretary of State give to securing the long-term future of Wednesbury Bright Bar as part of work towards the public acquisition of Speciality Steel UK, and how will this support the skills, jobs and manufacturing supply chains across the west midlands and beyond?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for her support and engagement on behalf of her constituents. There is a co-dependency between the four sites in terms of how the business operates, but any long-term consideration, whether in the private or the public sector of the business, will have to include consideration of products, customers and markets if the business is to be run profitably. That will be central to the assessment that we can now make. However, I can give the hon. Member the reassurance that every part of this business clearly has worth—which is why they have been grouped in this way, historically and in a contemporary sense—and, of course, we are seeking the best solution for the workers in all four of the plants.

I call the Father of the House.

We know that Speciality Steel has been severely impacted by high electricity costs, and we know just what that means from people in Scunthorpe, the constituency next to mine, which is a very heavy user of electricity. They are paying 50% more for their electricity than is being paid in France, for instance. However, the Government insist on phasing out the blast furnaces. Once we have electric arcs in Scunthorpe, people there will have to use twice as much electricity, paying much more. Does the Secretary of State agree that we cannot reindustrialise Britain simply through public ownership, but must reduce our energy costs? Will he take steps, over the next year or two, not to worry about green energy and all that, but just to reduce our energy costs to a level roughly equivalent to that in France?

I am always grateful for the support of the Father of the House, who has a long-standing interest in all industrial matters. However, I consider myself more obsessed with industrial energy prices than, frankly, any other Member of this House. I am great company when this subject comes up.

On electric arc furnaces—which are the technology in use here and will be, I hope, in Scunthorpe at some point —we already have in place a set of policies that do not just put us on a par with some of our rivals, but actually give us a competitive position. That is the supercharger scheme for the most energy-intensive electricity users. The Father of the House will know that we have also launched, as part of the industrial strategy, the British industrial competitiveness scheme which is about to come into force. In effect, it is a scheme for manufacturers, and again it significantly moves the dial on their competitiveness.

I recognise this issue, but we have done more than previous Governments, and we will continue to do more on it. I agree entirely with the Father of the House’s case, but I think we must recognise the very substantial work that has already gone on. I considered BICS to be the centrepiece of the industrial strategy when we launched it, because it moves the dial so significantly on our competitiveness not just for steel, but across a range of manufacturing sectors.

I acknowledge and thank the Secretary of State for the substantial support given to the steel industry, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said, is in direct contrast to the Conservatives, who did very little when they were in government. However, he will know of the particular concerns at Llanwern steelworks about the new quota levels for galvanised steel. Can I ask him to acknowledge that, to listen to the concerns of the workers at Llanwern and to tell us what more he is doing?

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with whom I have been discussing steel matters in this House for many years. I am aware of the specific challenges at Llanwern. I believe it is a very sound business, and our trade defence measures will directly benefit it. Again, we have to strike a balance. People would sometimes like us to go further in one direction than the other, but this is all part of the support we have given the steel industry. I believe that the downstream use she mentioned will be central to the future of steel production in Wales.

There is a central inconsistency in the Secretary of State’s argument. He talks about steel as a strategic asset, and I of course agree with that, but so are oil and gas, yet the Government do not seem to be coming forward with any proposals on that sector. He mentioned in his oral statement that the Government are going to pay this from “existing Government budgets”, but in answer to a question, he said that the money would possibly “fall on the Exchequer”, so how much is this going to cost? He also mentioned that he would prefer for the business to remain in the private sector, which is encouraging to hear, so does he have an indicative timetable for when it might go back on the market and be sold?

The right hon. Member will understand that I will not comment on matters pertaining to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, but stick to the considerable number of issues in the domain of BIST. He specifically asked about cost. The cost for the official receiver is £11 million a month, which is in the main to meet the payroll cost of the more than 1,200 members of staff that the sites employ. That is what we have done to date, and it is what we will continue to do.

On returning it to the private sector, we first have to see whether there is an opportunity to save this business. That may require public acquisition, as I said in my statement. If we follow the path in that direction, we would have to inject working capital—the process can now ascertain what that sum of money would be—to make the products and the business plan attractive and enable a return to the private sector, but that is a long way down the road. If we put in public money, I would want a return for that public money. I am more than willing—keen, in fact—to see this business return to the private sector, but if we put in public money to turn it around, I would obviously want to protect that money. I think is an entirely pragmatic and reasonable consideration.

I welcome this statement, which shows a Labour Government once again stepping in to protect jobs and protect our specialist steel industry. What steps will the Government take to get this steelmaking business back up and running, and what intervention will they be making with those in the downstream sector to support them to buy British wherever possible?

The process to date has in effect been working with potential private sector bidders on the viability of their plans. That task is entirely different from what we can do now, which is essentially to assess whether there is a viable future for this business under public acquisition. If there is—and, again, the strength of the products and the history of these sites are well known, as we have discussed in the House today—the opportunity would present itself to return to steel production.

My hon. Friend mentions the changes to procurement, and yes, there have been considerable changes to what we can do. In the main, I would say that when steel products are made in the UK, they do tend to be purchased in the UK. There is a significant export side to the UK business, but they are in the main purchased around that. Historically, the problem has been goods and products that we do not make in the UK and have had to import. Again, I think there are gaps in the market in that regard.

I congratulate the Government on making the decision to take Speciality Steel UK into public ownership, but the truth is that it should have been taken earlier. The preferred bidder was never going to perform. It has never made any steel, it did not have any money, it was seeking aggressive financing and it was using an investment adviser who fundamentally failed. I am troubled that the Government are now using the same investment adviser to advise them on British Steel. I urge the Government and the Secretary of State, who are doing the right thing with steel, to come up with a combined vision for Speciality Steel UK and British Steel. Merge them, invest in them, get the working capital going and get the production going. That will make it viable, that will get the cash flow positive again and that is in the strategic national interest.

I welcome the support from the hon. Gentleman for the decisive action we are taking. On his point about potentially combining British Steel and, if it were acquired in the public interest, Speciality Steel UK, I urge caution in that regard. The job required at Scunthorpe and Teesside for British Steel is in itself a significant industrial transformation. Not many transformations of this kind or scale have actually been done in Europe. What Tata Steel is doing with us in Port Talbot is a significant example of that. This is another set of issues. I think the House is aware that a different set of factors that really pertain to ownership have led us to this situation, so there are two distinct problems. We are taking action on both, but they are distinct and I would not at this stage recommend the bringing together of those two things. That is too big a task. We are better served by looking at them as distinct things to solve.

I thank the Secretary of State for his positive announcement. Downstream businesses in Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton used to source many items from Speciality Steel UK. I spent a lot of time working with it and the Department and Ministers to update product codes ahead of the tariff that Spain introduced. I am grateful for their engagement during that time. I understand that the upscaling of production will take time, but will he commit to continuing to work with the industry as the products come back online in the UK, so that none of the businesses in my constituency or elsewhere in the country are unfairly penalised?

I thank my hon. Friend for her support and for her question. My ideal is that I want steelworkers making steel. I do not think that is complicated, but it has been too complicated to date. All we are seeking is a chance for those proud people to return to the jobs that they so love and which have defined their communities for so many years. It will not be easy. I am grateful for the support across the House today, but it will not be easy. We are deliberately taking on this challenge rather than ignoring it and walking away, as I believe other Governments have done. I will remain closely engaged with her on the question she raises about how best to do that.

In his reference to the wider steel industry in his statement, the Secretary of State mentioned Scunthorpe. He knows that I have consistently supported the Government in the actions they have taken to keep the works going. I think he is a little too eager to criticise the previous Government; I gently remind him that for about 18 months they paid the wages and the bills at Scunthorpe to keep the jobs there. I appreciate that we get written statements, but when does he anticipate being able to come to the House and give an oral statement about the future of Scunthorpe?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He and I have discussed this issue many times. I remember calling him to tell him that we were about to recall Parliament at that particularly significant time for the site at Scunthorpe. I am always aware of his substantial constituency interest. We will rekindle that relationship, if that is the right terminology. He will have seen that we have just appointed a chair of British Steel. I am eager to crack on with the work that is required on a transformational plan for Scunthorpe. As soon as I have substantive information to share, I am always happy to come to the House to talk about steel. If he has any specific questions, he knows that he can contact me directly and I will always seek to give him the answers he needs.

I thank the Secretary of State for his support for domestic steelmaking. People do not often think of Monmouthshire as a steelmaking community, but we have excellent downstream steelmaking companies and hundreds of workers going every day to Llanwern, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). Will the Secretary of State share what the Government are doing to support downstream steel and to ensure that we are buying more Welsh steel in all UK projects and construction that are undertaken?

The quality of the downstream products we create in the UK, particularly in Wales, is well known, but there are gaps in the market. I often compare the level of domestic consumption in most European countries to where we are with domestic production in the UK, and there are clearly gaps in that market. That has always been about the need to improve the business environment, so that the sector can work constructively with the Government to provide the public-private capex solutions that we have seen a lot of across Europe but have not seen many of in the UK. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to all colleagues who make the case for what is, I believe, a business and a sector fundamentally important to the UK.

The Secretary of State mentioned the wider steel sector in his statement. I raise the issues experienced by Fowler and Gilbert and EverEdge in my constituency, both of which manufacture steel products and have been impacted by quotas and tariffs on steel imports. That is particularly the case with materials not produced in the UK, because it essentially adds a manufacturing tax to the work that they do. While their raw material costs are rising, there are no equivalent restrictions on imported finished products, particularly low-quality and low-cost imports from China. Those businesses face a situation where it is cheaper to import from overseas than to manufacture in the UK. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the concerns of those businesses, which are significant local employers in my constituency, and to find a solution that works for the whole steel sector?

I acknowledge the issues that the hon. Lady raises. She knows that our trade defence measures are a necessary response to global over-production. It is a problem that every Trade, Commerce and Business Minister around the world must grapple with. The role of our trade defence measures is to provide a level playing field for domestic production. If the hon. Lady believes that there is inconsistency with the products that are needed in her constituency, we are happy to meet her to take the matter forward. There is sometimes misalignment between certain product codes and trade defence measures. However, I genuinely believe that there is a consensus across the House that we have to be a country that is willing to intervene sometimes to ensure that there is a level playing field, both for the sectors directly affected and because, frankly, no one would base their business here if they thought it could be wiped out by the unfair competition that, I am afraid, is sometimes a feature of the global economy.

I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s action to secure the Speciality Steel UK sites in England. The Secretary of State is aware that the workforce in Motherwell’s Dalzell plate mill have been repeatedly and sorely let down by Speciality Steel, which has left the site underfunded and unable to carry out contracts. The workforce have also been let down by the SNP Government, which sold the site to those cowboys in the first place and then left the playing field. Dalzell was part of British Steel; that plate mill is the jigsaw piece that completes our steel offering in the UK. It makes sense for it to be brought back into the fold as soon as possible. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that he will take all necessary actions to save Dalzell and get it up and running again, ensuring that growth in every postcode includes ML1?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her advocacy on behalf of her constituents. She and I have discussed the matter several times. For colleagues who are less aware of the issue, Dalzell is a separate legal entity and company from Speciality Steel and thus separate from the full plans that we are talking about. Dalzell is still owned by the Gupta Family Group, but many of the same issues are found there. My hon. Friend knows that because that part of the business is not being run by the official receiver—it is a different set of circumstances—with any interest that we had, we would have to establish the level of liability, and the flow of public money that would be required, given the former associations that it has. We do not have current plans to do that, but we will remain closely engaged with my hon. Friend. I know that her constituents want to be back at work, and I share their frustration, but the House should be aware that Dalzell is in a different position from the rest of SSUK.

I wish to pass on my party’s condolences to the Prime Minister and his family.

While recognising the £500 million transition fund to Port Talbot, there are real concerns that Welsh steel will not receive a fair share of the £2.5 billion steel fund. Today the Secretary of State has announced that the public acquisition of Speciality Steel will be funded from that steel fund. Can the Secretary of State reassure the Welsh steel sector that Wales will get its fair share of the steel fund following today’s announcement?

Yes. On both a per capita basis and on a straightforward cash basis, Wales had until fairly recently had the lion’s share—the biggest allocations —from Government because of the significance of the transformation programme at Port Talbot, which remains a fundamental part of the steel sector across the UK. Being frank, it is also one of the sector’s success stories: the transformation of Port Talbot is a major project supported by significant public money and significant private capital, and it is exactly the kind of transformation we are seeking in other parts of the UK. It is to the credit of the workforce at Port Talbot that they are at the forefront of this; notwithstanding the difficult issues involved in such a transformation, it is something to be proud of.

My hon. Friend tempts me to comment on certain issues, which I might swerve a little. He is right to say that the priority for politicians should be trying to resolve these issues and get steelworkers back to work, and anything that detracts from that or that goes in a different direction is deeply regrettable.

I thank the Secretary of State for his responses. For businesses in Northern Ireland that rely on imported steel from large producers such as Speciality Steel, these changes create a significant risk of increasing costs, forced changes to suppliers and disruption to supply chains. Steel is a critical input for Northern Ireland, contributing to some 10% of our workforce, and the potential consequences for manufacturing, construction and engineering industries in Northern Ireland are significant. Does the Secretary of State agree that every effort must be made to ensure that Northern Ireland is not economically cut off by steel import arrangements protection for GB, and that this must not be at a cost to businesses in Northern Ireland?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that historically these plants have served a number of first-class manufacturers and engineering works in Northern Ireland, although they have not been doing so to date, as the workforce has been furloughed and the plants have not been operating. I would love to rekindle that relationship and see these issues resolved—that is the focus of the statement and the decisive action that the Government have taken.

On the wider complexities of steel imports and the movement of steel products between Northern Ireland and the island of Great Britain, that is a complex situation that reflects the Windsor agreement. There are things, particularly in the reset of the Government’s relationship with the EU, that Northern Ireland stands to gain from, and this is one of those areas. Again, that is a priority for the Government to resolve.