Government ‘confident' it can implement US deal in time to protect steel sector
US president Donald Trump exempted the UK from the 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium that came into effect on Wednesday morning, saying he would 'provide different treatment' after the deal struck between London and Washington last month.
The decision means that British steel exports will continue to face a 25% levy from America, rather than the higher rate, while negotiations continue on bringing the agreement into effect.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said: 'As a result of our landmark deal with the US, UK steel won't be subject to additional tariffs.
'My Government will always protect British businesses and British jobs.'
But the situation could still change again in July, when the US is set to either increase the tariffs to 50% or introduce the quotas in the US-UK agreement, effectively eradicating the tax, depending on whether the deal is implemented.
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander told the BBC's Today programme on Wednesday she was 'really confident' that her Cabinet colleagues had the 'ability' and 'determination' to 'ensure that we are protecting British businesses and that we can get on and implement the trade deals we have agreed'.
Ms Alexander said the Government would be introducing legislation 'to ensure that that happens', although this could take the form of regulations rather than a full Bill.
Meanwhile, the head of industry body UK Steel, Gareth Stace, urged the Government to 'apply rocket boosters' to negotiations with the US on implementing the deal.
Mr Stace said Mr Trump's decision to keep tariffs on British steel at 25% was a 'welcome pause' but warned that continuing uncertainty was making US customers 'dubious over whether they should even risk making UK orders'.
The Government has pledged to keep working with the US to get the agreement up and running and the 25% tariff rate 'removed'.
Those negotiations saw a meeting between Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds and US trade representative Jamieson Greer in Paris on Tuesday at which the two men committed to working closely to implement the deal.
President Trump just signed a proclamation raising tariffs on steel and aluminum imports by 50% to protect U.S. steel and national security.🇺🇸
THE GOLDEN AGE IS HERE! pic.twitter.com/TP32u0M4dR
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 3, 2025
A spokesperson said: 'The UK was the first country to secure a trade deal with the US earlier this month and we remain committed to protecting British business and jobs across key sectors, including steel as part of our plan for change.
'We're pleased that as a result of our agreement with the US, UK steel will not be subject to these additional tariffs. We will continue to work with the US to implement our agreement, which will see the 25% US tariffs on steel removed.'
The Conservatives have said that Labour's 'botched negotiations have left businesses in limbo'.
Shadow business and trade secretary Andrew Griffith said: 'Keir Starmer stood in front of the nation and insisted to the British public that his Labour government had achieved a trade deal with the US – and now one month later our industries face a fresh tariffs blow.
'So once again it seems that Keir Starmer's promise was just like the rest: hollow and broken. Labour's botched negotiations have left businesses in limbo and this country simply cannot afford their continuing failure.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
21 minutes ago
- Daily Record
BBC licence fee cost may now be determined by value of house in new proposal
BBC Chairman Samir Shah has suggested that the current fee of £174.50 should be revised for some households. TV license fees may start increasing based on the value of your home, as proposed by a BBC boss. Charmain Samir Shah has urged that the £174.50 fee be scrapped to make way for a progressive payment structure that is based on assets. Speaking in an interview earlier this year, Mr Shah explained the fee would be tied to property bands and collected at the same time as council tax, which would come as his first major shake-up since taking over from Richard Sharp. He also shut down speculation that the TV licence would be scrapped for a Netflix subscription-style service, stating that it would "not meet the BBC's key role to offer something for everyone in the country.' Viewers living in higher council tax bands would pay more for BBC service while those in lower bands may end up paying less than the current rate. Those who opt out of paying a TV licence would no longer be able to do so. The chairman believes this policy would reduce the need to prosecute people for not paying. He told The Sunday Times: "It gets rid of the enforcement issue, which is a problem. The idea that not paying the licence fee is a criminal offence seems too harsh." In Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, where there is no Council Tax, an alternative would have to be implemented. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy may also be open to it, having described the current model as "harder for poorer households to pay". In the interview, he answered questions about changing the model of the BBC and rejected the proposal of a hybrid structure, which would see the broadcaster offering its basic services such as news for free and charging for content like drama or comedy series. He continued to say that the advertising on the BBC would "kill off ITV", and dismissed the idea that the broadcaster should be funded solely by general taxation because it would "leave the BBC open to influence from the government of the day". Samir Shah, 73, took over as BBC chairman in February 2024 after he replaced Richard Sharp, who resigned in April 2023. At the moment, although there are concessions or free licences for certain groups, such as those over 75 who receive Pension Credit, the licence fee does not take personal assets into consideration. The standard fee is charged at £174.50 per annum with a reduced rate of £58.50 for black and white subscriptions. For viewers who are blind or severely sight-impaired, a 50% discount is available, bringing the cost down to £87.25.
Times
27 minutes ago
- Times
Fact check: how accurate are Rachel Reeves's spending figures?
'The chancellor's speech was full of numbers, few of them useful,' said Paul Johnson, the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Reeves's speech was political to the core — and that extended to her use of statistics. The chancellor appears to have used whichever numbers best suited her position, predominantly to inflate the scale of the government's spending plans. She used bigger, cumulative figures to highlight the scale of investments, rather than annual numbers, and cash increases stripped of their context. She also used Tory spending plans from before the election, which never came to pass, as the baseline for the biggest numbers in her speech. When it did not suit her she ignored the Tory spending plans. While none of the figures are technically inaccurate, economists argue that they are a statistical sleight of hand and that Reeves would be better off being consistent in her use of numbers. Spending going up The claim: The first number in Reeves's speech — bar her obligatory reference to the £22 billion 'black hole' she claims to have been left by the Tories — was the boast that 'in this spending review, total departmental budgets will grow by 2.3 per cent per year in real terms'. The reality: This figure includes spending announced at the budget last year, where there were some of the biggest increases. Over the next three years, total spending — combining day-to-day and investment — will increase by 1.5 per cent. Day-to-day spending will rise by 1.2 per cent a year for the rest of the parliament, about half the rate it rose this year. • More for public services The claim: Reeves promised to add '£190 billion more to the day-to-day running of our public services' as well as an extra £113 billion to public investment. The reality: This is a comparison with previous Conservative plans — dismissed as 'essentially fictitious' by Johnson — drawn up before the election to set a trap for Labour and allow Rishi Sunak to promise tax cuts. The Tory plans envisioned day-to-day spending rising by only about 1 per cent a year, and big cuts in capital spending. Reeves reversed these by changing her fiscal rules to allow more borrowing and is increasing infrastructure spending. But on an annual basis, capital spending will be £151.9 billion in 2029-30, £20.6 billion more in cash terms than it is now. Day-to-day spending will rise by £50.7 billion by 2028-29. More for schools The claim: Reeves said she was providing a 'cash uplift' of more than £4.5 billion for schools by the end of the spending review period. The reality: Context is everything. The Treasury concedes in the small print that the core budget for schools will rise by 0.4 per cent over the next three years. It says that when the cost of expanding free school meals is stripped out of the figures 'you get a real-terms freeze in the budget'. • Rachel Reeves is testing voters' patience … she needs results Backing innovation The claim: Reeves declared that the government was 'backing [Britain's] innovators, researchers and entrepreneurs' with research and development funding rising to a 'record high of £22 billion per year by the end of the spending review'. In a press release the government said that spending on research and development was £86 billion. The reality: Despite the rhetoric, this spending pledge represents a significant scaling back of the government's investment ambitions in research and development. The previous government pledged to hit the £22 billion target by this year and then delayed it until 2027. This target has now been put back even further to 2029. Indeed, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology's budget will barely rise at all next year — far from the rhetoric of Reeves's statement. The £86 billion referred to in government press releases is a cumulative figure. More for social housing The claim: Reeves boasted of 'the biggest cash injection into social and affordable housing in 50 years', saying this would total £39 billion over ten years. The reality: The figure would represent almost a doubling of the £2.3 billion affordable homes programme. However, this spending ramps up slowly, reaching just £4 billion a year by the end of the parliament, leaving it to future chancellors to find ways of maintaining the spending. The overall capital budget for the housing ministry is actually flat over the spending review, with ministers relying on savings elsewhere — especially a reduction in the capital costs to councils of homes for asylum seekers. If these savings fail to materialise, painful decisions will be needed. NHS spending The claim: With health the big winner, Reeves boasted of 'an extra £29 billion per year for the day-to-day running of the health service' along with a 50 per cent boost in the NHS technology budget. The reality: The £29 billion figure is for NHS England specifically, and its budget will rise by 3 per cent a year in real terms, within a 2.8 per cent per year overall Department of Health rise. Capital budgets were increased last year but will be held flat for the rest of this parliament. Increasing technology spending further will therefore come at the cost of crumbling buildings or modern scanners and other kit. NHS leaders are already saying they will find it harder to shift to more modern, efficient treatments without extra equipment and buildings. Efficiency savings The claim: Reeves said the government had carried out a zero-based review of all government spending that would make public services 'more efficient and more productive' and, according to the Treasury, save £13 billion a year by 2029. The reality: These savings are, to put it charitably, extremely hypothetical and in some cases seem wildly optimistic. The NHS, the government thinks, will save nearly £9 billion from higher productivity — despite the fact that the health service has got less rather than more productive since Covid. And the culture department thinks it will save £9 million from 'digital reform' — despite the fact that the MoD, which is a much larger organisation, only thinks it can save £11 million. Overall the savings appear, at best, to be highly aspirational. But if they are not met, it will have a real-world impact on the amount of money the government has for public services.
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Planet Normal: ‘The numbers don't add up' in Rachel Reeves' spending review
Mr Lyons wasn't convinced by the numbers, ' Early in her speech the Chancellor said, is the plan credible, and the answer unfortunately is, no.' 'T he starting position is debt is very high, and I think we're in the early stages of Britain going into a debt crisis. If you're looking for good news, it might be that we're not the only country facing this problem; but today the Chancellor gave a speech that I think lacked a lot of the detail.' Allison is not convinced by the claims the economy is stabilising, ' We know it is not true, and we are already starting to see the impact on employment and on businesses. We know payrolls have fallen, that employment's fallen by over 250,000 since Rachel Reeves' budget. This is not an economy where you should be taking the gambles that she's taking. Where is the growth going to come from?'
