Reynolds: Port Talbot plant does not meet US rules to get steel tariff exemption
Negotiations are ongoing to secure the outstanding tariff agreements.
The executive order signed by Mr Trump suggests the US wants assurances on the supply chains for steel intended for export, as well as on the 'nature of ownership' of production facilities.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has insisted the ownership structure of the British Steel plant in Scunthorpe does not need to change to complete the deal with the US.
'The issue with the implementation of the steel agreement is the melt and pour rules, which is the US interpretation of rules of origin around steel,' Mr Reynolds told reporters.
He said that applies to the Port Talbot plant, where semi-finished products come into the UK and then go to the mills for processing to keep the business going.
'That doesn't meet their existing implementation of that in the US.'
The British Steel plant is controlled directly by the Government, but is still owned by Chinese firm Jingye.
Asked if British Steel's ownership was part of US trade talks, he said it 'comes up in the context of the US (being) very supportive of what we did' to take control of the plant.
'On British Steel, we have to resolve issues of ownership separate to issues around US trade,' he said.
The ownership is something that needs to be resolved 'regardless' of the US talks.
The Government plans to class Britain's steel and energy sectors as 'nationally important' to UK security under new procurement rules.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
8 minutes ago
- BBC News
Northampton homeless charity fears closure over funding dispute
A charity which houses homeless people says it faces closure because its position has "become impossible" following a funding Association for Accommodation for Single Homeless (NAASH) provides supported accommodation for about 200 people and works to help them move into longer-term charity is financed by claiming housing benefit to secure accommodation for its clients, but NAASH said it had been told by West Northamptonshire Council that funding had been held up as the authority disputed the "validity" of its Reform UK-controlled council said it was "very mindful" of the impact the dispute. Charlie Hastie, the cabinet member for housing, said: "The council has been working over a long period to try to address anomalies in the housing benefits claims made for NAASH properties and the tenants that live there."Housing benefit is governed by nationally set regulations, and where evidence cannot be provided to support claims that have been put in then we are not able to pay benefit."This is also true of historic payments which if, upon review, are not supported by the required evidence also have to be recovered as overpayments."The council has no choice in this matter as the government both sets the regulations and will not pay the council to meet these costs if they do not comply with the regulations."The charity, which has been supporting homeless people since 2000, does not own its housing and mostly rents rooms in houses of multiple occupation (HMOs). 'Time critical' The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), which administers housing benefit, said it could not comment on the said: "We support over a million people through housing benefit every year, which is managed and administered by local authorities."Local authorities decide if a customer is eligible for the benefit, applying DWP rules to ensure the right support is going to the right place."In a statement, the trustees of NAASH said: "All those supported [by the charity] are people who need accommodation assistance and support, and have been recommended by West Northants Council and formerly Northampton Borough Council."Negotiations continue with [the council] but the timing is now critical. Unless resolved immediately, NAASH will have to close." Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
BBC News
8 minutes ago
- BBC News
Norwich man 'demoralised' after Ryanair damages wheelchair
A wheelchair rugby player says he feels "demoralised" after an airline refused to pay the full cost of replacing his damaged Connor-Saunders, 28, who has cerebral palsy, arrived back at London Stansted Airport on a Ryanair flight from Toulouse, France, to find his £9,000 bespoke chair bent out of Connor-Saunders, of Norwich, described Ryanair's offer of £1,500 compensation as "insulting," saying it was only a fraction of the cost of a new chair. A Ryanair spokesperson said the company had offered the maximum compensation he was entitled to. Mr Connor-Saunders, who plays for London WRC, is a personal back at Stansted last December after a tournament, he saw the back of his wheelchair - which he uses in everyday life, but not for rugby - had been said it was "demoralising" as he used the made-to-measure chair for "everything"."A wheelchair is not your generic medical kit, or it's not your generic luggage that's lost and damaged and can be easily replaced," he said. Mr Connor-Saunders, who did not have travel insurance, said the company that made it told him it could not be used a hammer to straighten out the bent frame but said it was now painful to sit in, and he thought it was likely to break soon."I'm just sitting on a ticking time bomb at the moment," he said."I can only bear to be in my chair for two to three hours at a time or I'm in pain for the rest of the day." Emails state that the airline has accepted responsibility for damaging the wheelchair and has offered him £1,500 in compensation."That wouldn't even cover the costs of two wheels, let alone replacing the chair," said Mr Connor-Saunders."This has stopped me from being able to work. I'm incapable of fronting up that extra money myself."A spokesperson from Ryanair said wheelchair handling at Toulouse Airport was provided by a separate company that it paid for."Under the Montreal Convention, the maximum compensation this passenger is entitled to is £1,500," the spokesperson added. Follow Norfolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
The Guardian
8 minutes ago
- The Guardian
New Zealand to charge foreign tourists to visit most famous sites
New Zealand plans to start charging international tourists fees to enter its famous natural sites and will make it easier for businesses to operate on conservation land as part of a controversial proposal to 'unleash' growth on ecologically and culturally protected areas. The government plans to start charging foreign visitors NZ$20-40 ($12-24) per person to access some sites. Initially, those would probably include Cathedral Cove/Te Whanganui-a-Hei, Tongariro Crossing, Milford Track and Aoraki Mount Cook. The fees are likely to be imposed from 2027. The conservation minister, Tama Potaka, said those fees could generate NZ$62m a year 'so we can keep investing in the sites that underpin so much of our tourism sector'. The government's announcements form part of a wider shake-up of conservation law that will also make selling or exchanging conservation land easier and allow more activities to go ahead on conservation without needing a permit. 'In the spirit of saying yes to more jobs, more growth and higher wages', the government would 'unleash a fresh wave of concessions' including in tourism, agriculture and infrastructure at some locations, the prime minister, Christopher Luxon, said on Saturday. Conservation land is protected, publicly owned land and makes up a third of New Zealand territory. It covers areas with biodiversity, historic or cultural value. Some businesses such as ski fields and grazing already operated on conservation land but many other businesses struggled to gain the same permission, Luxon said. It is the latest policy that seeks to loosen regulation on natural sites and species to enable economic growth. In 2024, the government passed a law that could see contentious mining and infrastructure projects fast-tracked for approval. It has also proposed a law change to make it easier for companies to kill protected wildlife in order to pursue certain infrastructure projects. Conservation and climate initiatives have also faced budget cuts. But critics say the changes risk harming the environment and vulnerable species. New Zealand has high rates of endemic biodiversity but some species are in worrying decline, with a high proportion threatened or at risk of extinction. Green party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said Luxon was putting profit above the protection of nature. 'That tells us everything we need to know about who he thinks he works for. It's not regular people, future generations or a healthy environment,' she said in a statement to the Guardian. Nicola Toki, the chief executive of New Zealand's largest conservation organisation, Forest & Bird, said the latest reforms 'represent the most significant weakening of conservation law in a generation' and would increase pressure on vulnerable species. 'They shift the focus from protection to exploitation, dismantling the very purpose of our national parks and conservation lands.'
