Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2026
House of Commons · General Committees · 17 Jun 2026 · 56 speeches · Official Report
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chair: Paula Barker
† Barros-Curtis, Mr Alex (Cardiff West) (Lab)
† Baxter, Johanna (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Cooper, Daisy (St Albans) (LD)
† Glindon, Mary (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
† Greenwood, Lilian (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty ’ s Treasury)
† Juss, Warinder (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
† Mak, Alan (Havant) (Con)
† Reynolds, Mr Joshua (Maidenhead) (LD)
† Rushworth, Sam (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Sewards, Mark (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
† Simmonds, David (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
† Slinger, John (Rugby) (Lab)
† Stephenson, Blake (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
† Strathern, Alistair (Hitchin) (Lab)
† Thomas, Gareth (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
† Tomlinson, Dan (Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury)
† Wild, James (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Sara Elkhawad, Jennifer McCormick, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(2):
Allister, Jim (North Antrim) (TUV)
Baldwin, Dame Harriett (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Lockhart, Carla (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Moore, Robbie (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Race, Steve (Exeter) (Lab)
Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 17 June 2026
[Paula Barker in the Chair ]
Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2026
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2026 (S.I., 2026, No. 572). It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. This is not my home turf; the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), has been leading on this legislation, but he is engaged on trade business in Turkey today, so-somewhat like a turkey voting for Christmas-I am here with this Committee, which is good. I am glad that the shadow Exchequer Secretary is joining us today. The instrument updates the UK’s tariff schedule to implement certain elements of the Government’s steel strategy, as set out by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade in March 2026. Specifically, the instrument will increase to 50% the standard rate of import duty on certain steel products, and it includes provision to ensure that the standard 50% rate will apply in place of any preferential tariffs agreed in trade agreements with partner countries or applied unilaterally by the UK. However, as part of the UK’s commitment to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia’s illegal invasion, the preferential rates agreed with Ukraine will continue to apply. The instrument also includes provisions for goods that were already under contract when the new steel tariffs were made public, so that the new, increased rate will not be paid on those that are imported between 1 July and 30 September. A strong steel...
As the Minister rightly says, he has been landed in it by his colleagues.
Well, I didn’t quite say that.
Let us be in no doubt that these regulations, if approved, would cause serious damage to our manufacturing sector and be likely to result in the loss of thousands of skilled jobs. They replace the expiring UK steel safeguard measure. Two weeks from today, manufacturing and engineering businesses will be hit with a 50% tariff on steel imports across 20 product categories. Bright bar, wire and stainless steel are captured for the first time. As the Minister says, preferential rates-aside from those for Ukraine-are also being taken away. In justifying the policy, the Government have said that higher tariffs will apply only to steel that is, or could be, made in the UK, but the industry has said repeatedly to Ministers and to Opposition Members that that is not the case. Those firms are clear that UK mills cannot produce the grades and type of steel that their businesses require. I raised that issue with another of the Minister’s colleagues, the Industry Minister, during an urgent question at which a number of Labour Members spoke against the regulations; I look forward to contributions from members of this Committee along the same lines. When I raised the issue, the Minister said that there were three mills in the country that could, with investment and additional capacity, provide that-but let’s get real. If approved, these regulations come into effect in just two weeks. That is not enough time to stand up the investment and the production for the grades of steel, the...
Steel matters for our national security, for our defence and for our critical infrastructure, and it sustains jobs in every single part of the United Kingdom. British Steel supports thousands of jobs and more than £1 billion-worth of economic activity through its own operation and supply chain, as well as underpinning hundreds of thousands of jobs and several more billion pounds-worth of activity across the industries that depend on it. This is an industry that is worth defending. It has been battered by President Trump’s trade war and by years of unfair practices from China. But supporting the goal is not the same as supporting the method, and the method before us today-a flat 50% tariff, sweeping away the preferential rates across 20 categories of steel-gets the balance badly wrong. It risks protecting one part of British industry by punishing another. Two of those categories make the point very sharply: category 14, which covers stainless bars and light sections, and category 27, which covers cold-finished bars. Those are not commodity steel products bought by the tonne; they are long precision products on which aerospace, defence and motorsport rely, machined to fine tolerances and certified to exacting grades. Those are also categories in which Britain has little or no production at the volume that we need. A 50% tariff here will not redirect demand to British mills, because there are no British mills to redirect that demand to; it simply lands a 50% tax on those...
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. My Keighley and Ilkley constituency is home to several businesses that have major concerns about the impact of this statutory instrument on them and their employees. Airedale Springs, Olicana Products and GESIPA have all been in contact with me about the proposed new tariffs, by which they have been completely blindsided. One of the team at GESIPA described the impact of the tariffs as “devastating”. The managing director of Olicana Products has warned that if this heavy-handed legislation passes unchanged, it will trigger a catastrophic chain reaction across every single UK industry that is reliant on these metals. Those businesses and business leaders have contacted me and many of my Conservative colleagues as they are deeply concerned about the steel industry. In their correspondence with me, they have been crystal clear that these measures, should they go ahead, will increase costs, reduce supply, weaken competitiveness and directly threaten thousands of manufacturing jobs, while doing little to increase domestic steel production. They are also concerned that the legislation is being rushed. They have had no time to adjust to the mechanisms that have been brought through, which will have severe cash-flow implications for their businesses. Let me read out directly some of the emails that have been sent to me. Olicana Products said: “We all want a thriving, strong UK steel sector. However, this poorly planned...
I strongly support the points made by the Opposition. This is a rushed and ill-conceived piece of delegated legislation, and I have major concerns about its impact on Northern Ireland and the specialised steel in our defence sector, which is quite significant to the whole nation. There is real concerns about what will happen to that. Northern Ireland is in a very difficult and different position. This regulation purports to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, but I must question whether it really does or will. Northern Ireland is, because of the absurdity of being subject to EU law, already subject to EU quotas and tariffs on steel. In the main Chamber, the Minister for Industry talked earlier today about ongoing negotiations with the EU on this matter. However, legally, as things stand, the EU sadly has the status and sovereignty to decree the tariff regime in a part of this United Kingdom. It is absurd beyond measure, but that is the situation. The rest of the world’s steel is already coming into Northern Ireland, and if we exceed the quota, it attracts a 25% tariff. Under EU rules, that is due to rise to 50%. Incredibly, GB steel coming into Northern Ireland has to pass through a full international customs border-the red lane-because no one can properly say that its ultimate manufacture would not be at risk of going into the EU. It therefore passes through the red lane and is subject to customs declarations and, in certain circumstances-if we exceed the quota-to...
I thank Members for their contributions and questions in this debate on an important statutory instrument. It is right and proper that the Opposition have the chance to question and interrogate the Government’s decision making on the significant change that we are bringing forward. It is worth understanding that the Government have been engaging in detail with industry on this since the announcement in March. My understanding is that a number of codes-nine, I think-have been changed since that announcement. That is as a result of engagement and meetings with industry-with those downstream sectors-by the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), and others on whether or not it is possible for them to access UK-produced steel. The shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, asked me about codes 14 and 27, which are of particular relevance to the aerospace and defence industries. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), was asked about that earlier today. He has been meeting with that sector today, I believe, to talk about the impact on them and to consider what the Government can do. The shadow Exchequer Secretary also asked about a review. It is the Government’s intention to keep this under review, with a formal review point after 12 months, as he noted. On the quota levels, I take the point that there is uncertainty at the moment,...
Will the Minister give way?
Yes, but I was just praising the hon. Gentleman!
Could the Minister explain, not only to me but to the businesses in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, why, if the explanatory memorandum accompanying the legislation clearly states that these regulations are “expected to have negative impacts on downstream businesses that use steel”, he and his Labour party are comfortable introducing it?
I was just coming to that point. As the hon. Gentleman and the shadow Exchequer Secretary have pointed out, the Government are not hiding from the impacts of the measures on some downstream sectors and businesses. He has just read out the explanatory memorandum that the Government themselves produced. The Government have taken a strategic view: in the end, we need a tariff and quota system that protects domestic steel so that, if the worst happens and we need to ensure that we have domestic supply in times of crisis for vital production here in the UK, we have it. Hon. Members know that we have seen a significant reduction in steel production in the UK-I believe a reduction of 50% over the past 10 years-and the representations that the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, and individual businesses and business groups have made to Ministers over recent months have of course been taken into account and considered, but on balance the Government’s view on this strategic assessment is that, in the end, strong production and a strong downstream sector go hand in hand.
This is the kernel of the issue. The Minister is talking about protecting UK steel production, but as I and other colleagues have outlined, and as industry is furiously telling all MPs across the House, at the moment no UK production meets the demand that industry has, whether that is in the precision, the grading or the volume necessary. In two weeks’ time, however, a 50% tax is going to be slapped on businesses buying such steel, which they cannot get in the UK and for which they are forced to go overseas. How can that possibly be the right approach? Does he not recognise that that will lead to job losses and to businesses failing?
As I said, the Government have set out in the explanatory memorandum the fact that there will be an impact from the tariffs, from the 50% rate, but the Government’s view overall is that it is important to ensure that we have a strong and thriving domestic steel sector, which can help businesses here in the UK to weather, and to minimise their exposure to, global shocks, so that we can have a reliable and secure domestic supply. That is very important, and if we had continued on the path that we were on for the long term, we would have seen a continued decline in our domestic supply and in our ability to ensure resilience and security at times when we as a country might need them most.
The reality on the ground is very different. The demand required is 9.1 million tonnes per year, with 5.6 million tonnes being produced in the United Kingdom. We all want to see domestic production increase, but until we see that and allow it to happen, we cannot slap a 50% tariff on what we need to import to keep our manufacturing, our construction and our infrastructure sectors functioning, and to avoid supply chain complications, potential shortages and increased building costs. To my mind, this is a farming inheritance tax moment for the Government. If they do not pull back from it, they will see industry crippled across this United Kingdom-industries such as our manufacturing, our construction and our infrastructure. I encourage every Member in Committee to think long and hard before destroying our home-grown industries.
The existing framework falls away at the end of June. Opposition Members have suggested that where the Government wish to proceed, we should instead delay, but our concern is that that would leave the steel sector as a whole totally undefended and exposed to the significant oversupply of steel production across the world. We do not want to see continued degradation and reduction in our domestic steel production. In the end, that would be bad for our whole country-for businesses large and small, and not only those involved in steel production and manufacturing, but other businesses and our broader economy. That is the strategic assessment that the Government have made.
The Minister is being very generous with accepting interventions. I understand the point he is making about global oversupply; for example, in the housing sector there is an abundance of rebar, which is essentially very cheap, low-grade steel, as it is used in the construction industry, and demand is falling because of a general slowdown in construction. However, that product is completely different from the high-grade 409L steel used in specialist watch-making and medical instruments. Harefield hospital in my constituency relies on that steel for highly specialised medical instruments that are made in the UK, including small parts such as stents, which keep people’s hearts pumping. Simply saying that there is a generalised global oversupply does not remotely help the individual businesses in the UK that depend on the supply of highly specialised products. Given that the Minister said that the Government have a strategy and want to take a strategic approach, how will they ensure that supplies are present in the United Kingdom before adding 50% to the cost of British manufacturers, upon which our NHS, as well as the other sectors we have heard about, depends?
I thank the hon. Member for his question; he makes an important and valid point. Of course, if the different types of steel, products and manufacturing are not and cannot be produced in the UK, the 50% tariff that we are debating will not apply. Also, this House has not yet passed the quota levels, and Ministers are continuing to engage with businesses and industry. In preparation for today’s debate, I spoke to the Ministers who have led the work on this legislation, so I know that engagement has taken place in great depth over recent months to make sure that the Government account for concerns and get this difficult but important decision right. On the complexities and challenges around the operation of the Windsor framework in Northern Ireland, and goods being “at risk” or “not at risk”, it is, of course, a difficult and sensitive issue. Broadly, the Government’s approach is to continue to find ways to reduce friction and to deepen our relationship with the European Union. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister confirmed that on 22 July, there will be a summit, during which we can hopefully make progress on a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and other areas. I am afraid I will have to disappoint the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, as I cannot give more detail than was given in the House this morning by the Ministers leading on the policy, but the EU and the UK are committed to working together on seeking a solution, and are engaging constructively. Of course,...
Will the Minister give way?
I will happily give way.
I sense that the Minister is either giving way or looking for a note with the answer to a couple more of my questions; I thought I would give him the opportunity to find a note. I referred to the Canadian example. Canada provides relief to companies that are unable to source steel in Canada that is part of the tariff regime. The Minister keeps saying that if it cannot be produced in the UK, it will not be covered by tariffs, so that should be a simple thing to do. These codes will inevitably include products that are not able to be manufactured in the UK, so why can companies not get relief if that proves to be the case?
Of course the Government will continue to engage with industry and we will listen to any representations made. I am interested in the example from Canada, and I will personally make sure that it is passed on to the Minister with lead responsibility. Even if Members are not fully satisfied with my responses, I hope they feel that I have endeavoured to take a range of interventions and respond as well as I can to the points raised. I hope Members can see that the goal of the instrument is to implement policy in line with the steel strategy to support the UK steel sector as a whole. For those reasons, I commend the legislation to the Committee. Question put.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2026 (S.I., 2026, No. 572).
Committee rose.