For decades, Britain’s industrial heartlands powered this country. Steel from Sheffield and Scunthorpe built our ships, our railways, our skyscrapers — and our global reputation for engineering excellence.
Skilled workers in places like Rotherham, Sheffield, Port Talbot, and Teesside forged a living for their families and carried the country on their shoulders.So when the Government announced a new generation of nuclear power stations — built with British engineering, British expertise, and British taxpayers’ money — many hoped it would finally mark the beginning of a long-awaited industrial renaissance.But instead, as we now see with the row over foreign steel being used for new UK-built nuclear reactors, the same government whose ministers talk endlessly about “good green jobs” is preparing to send billions of pounds overseas, bypassing the very workers and industries they claim to champion.This isn’t an accident.It’s the inevitable consequence of an ideological, frantic rush to Net Zero that ignores engineering reality, economic logic, and national interest.
The SMR Promise — Undermined Before It Begins
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) were sold to the public as a chance to restore our lost manufacturing capability. Rolls-Royce, one of Britain’s last world-leading engineering giants, has the experience. British steelmakers — including the taxpayer-owned Sheffield Forgemasters — have the capability to supply the ultra-high-grade steel for reactor pressure vessels and key components.Yet despite:£2.5 billion of taxpayer funding,a commitment to build and operate these reactors through the State-owned Great British Energy, and public assurances that this would create thousands of skilled jobs,the Government is now considering importing cheap foreign steel, potentially from heavily subsidised producers in China.This isn’t simply short-sighted.It’s economically and strategically self-inflicted damage.British taxpayers fund the project.British workers get the unemployment line.Foreign producers get the contracts.You couldn’t design a worse industrial policy if you tried.
The Argument Coming From Miliband’s Department Speaks Volumes
Behind the scenes, Whitehall is now split. According to reporting, the Department for Business and Trade wants British steel in British reactors — an obvious position for any serious industrial nation.But the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, led by Ed Miliband, along with Rachel Reeves’s Treasury, wants to prioritise the “cheapest” global option — regardless of where it comes from or what it does to British workers.And this is the crucial point:
When ideology dictates policy, national interest is the first casualty.Miliband’s entire approach to energy — from the wind turbine supply chain to hydrogen projects to the new nuclear programme — is driven not by what works, not by what is safest, not by what is economically beneficial, but by what ticks the right Net Zero boxes.Cost, resilience, and domestic capability have become secondary concerns.And the result is painfully predictable: industry hollowed out, supply chains outsourced, bills rising, and Britain becoming more dependent on hostile or unstable foreign producers.
The Consequences for Steel Are Devastating — And Entirely Avoidable
Every SMR requires thousands of tonnes of specialist steel, including pressure vessel forgings that British firms have spent decades developing. Sheffield Forgemasters in particular — owned by the taxpayer — is uniquely capable of producing naval-grade reactor steel.Yet instead of supporting them, the Government may hand the orders to China or other foreign mills that are:
State subsidised
Flooding global markets with artificially cheap steel
Undercutting British producers
Ignoring the environmental and labour standards required here
Worse still, this comes at the same time UK Steel is warning of:looming EU tariffs that could destroy UK competitiveness, and a lack of government decision-making on protecting the industry from unfair imports.It is madness to pour billions of public money into supporting British steel with one hand, while robbing it of future orders with the other.
Even Labour backbenchers have been forced to speak out. Sheffield MP Clive Betts has rightly condemned the proposal, pointing out that when taxpayers fund a national infrastructure project, British industry should benefit — not foreign competitors.
Sir Andrew Cook, one of the most senior figures in UK manufacturing, described the idea of importing steel for British reactors as “idiocy”.And he’s right.You cannot build an energy-secure Britain on foreign foundations.
The Pattern Is Becoming Impossible to Ignore
This isn’t an isolated incident. It is part of a wider pattern emerging under Miliband’s Net Zero programme.
Wind turbines?£21 billion worth of new construction — and “next to no” British steel, even though 90% of it could be produced here.
Hydrogen projects?Heavily subsidised by DESNZ — and not required to use British steel. (BP has already axed one of them.)
Network Rail procurement?£140 million of steel advertised globally without favouring UK suppliers — despite being a State-owned body.
Solar farms and grid expansions?Materials largely imported, manufacturing overseas, jobs outsourced.This is not a coincidence.This is the structure of Net Zero as currently designed.A high-cost, high-dependency model that enriches foreign supply chains while emptying Britain’s industrial towns.We get the emissions targets; they get the jobs.
Why Is This Happening? Because Ideology Is Leading, Not Engineering
The entire premise of the current Net Zero strategy is built on unrealistic timelines and political messaging rather than practical, engineering-based planning.
To deliver rapid decarbonisation:
components must be bought quickly,global supply chains must be used even if they undercut British industry,cost is measured at the point of purchase rather than across decades,and long-term strategic value is ignored.
This is why:
Our grid is overstretched.
Our energy prices keep rising.
Our storage plans are unworkable.
Our workforce is sidelined.
Our manufacturing base is shrinking.
Our dependency on imports is growing.When the priority is simply to tick a box — “build more clean energy now” — quality, sovereignty, and jobs become collateral damage.
“We are rushing to meet targets that were never achievable in the first place.And the faster we run toward them, the more damage we do to ourselves.”
What an Engineering-Led Strategy Would Look Like
If the Government followed engineering and industrial sense instead of ideological dogma, the UK could deliver genuine energy security and tens of thousands of skilled jobs.An engineering-led nuclear programme would:
Use British steel for reactor components.
Build a UK supply chain for forgings, control systems, and fabrication.
Train a new generation of steelworkers, welders, fabricators, machinists, and nuclear specialists.
Rebuild national industrial capacity.
Produce stable, affordable energy for 60+ years.Reduce dependence on volatile imports and hostile states.These opportunities exist.What’s missing is political leadership with the courage to prioritise them.
The Real Cost of Miliband’s Approach: Jobs, Sovereignty, and Higher Bills
The Government claims it wants affordable energy. But how can prices fall when Britain imports everything — materials, turbines, solar panels, transformers, cabling, battery systems — instead of producing them at home?
Foreign dependency creates:
inflation in supply chains,weak economic multipliers,instability in long-term costs,and higher consumer bills.
The irony?If we built these projects with British steel and British labour, the long-term cost of energy would fall, not rise.We would keep the value here.We would invest in our own people.We would stabilise our own energy system.We would revive industry instead of dismantling it.
Britain Deserves Better Than Ideology Disguised as Energy Policy
The SMR steel row is not about procurement — it is a symbol of a failing approach to national energy.
We need policies grounded in:
engineering reality,national interest,domestic capability,industrial strategy, and long-term economic security.
Not ideology.
Not haste.
Not virtue signalling.
Not the fantasy that Britain can outsource its way to Net Zero.
Across the country, people are starting to see through the illusion.
They can see that Miliband’s rush to Net Zero is not delivering green jobs — it’s exporting them.They can see that it’s not lowering bills — it’s locking families into higher ones.And they can see that it’s not strengthening Britain — it’s weakening us.
This country deserves an energy strategy built on sovereignty, engineering excellence, and common sense.It’s time to back British steel, British workers, and British solutions.Not foreign imports and political ideology.
Shane Oxer. Campaigner for fairer and affordable energy
SAY NO TO THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR LAND 
Leave a comment