Fourth Report - Liberty Steel and the future of the UK steel Industry

The government agrees that complex corporate structures should not be a legal barrier to proper scrutiny of companies like the GFG Alliance, while noting it does not wish to restrict business structuring.

The government acknowledges that complex corporate structures should not hinder scrutiny but states it does not wish to restrict the ability of businesses to structure themselves, without committing to bringing forward amendments to the Companies Act.

The government acknowledges that complex corporate structures should not be a legal barrier to scrutiny but expresses a desire not to restrict business structuring, without committing to specific actions.

The government redirects the matter to the independent Financial Reporting Council (FRC), which acknowledges the public interest but states the GFG Alliance entities are not within its usual scope of investigation, though it can reclaim matters if in the public interest.

The government response consists only of a title and page reference, providing no substantive engagement with the committee's finding regarding King & King's auditing capacity.

The government's response is only a title and does not address the committee's conclusion regarding Liberty Steel UK's poor audit and accounting practices.

The government's response is only a title and does not address the recommendation for the Financial Reporting Council to refer the case of King & King for investigation.

The government's response text was merely a header, effectively not addressing the committee's commendation of its decision to reject GFG Alliance's request for financial support.

The government's response outlined the FRC's investigative remit regarding audit matters, but did not address the specific recommendation to consider formalising a 'fit and proper person test' for private company directors within any future steel sector deal.

The government, via BEIS and the FRC, acknowledged the public interest in the issues of opaque funding at Liberty Steel, outlining the FRC's investigative remit and procedures for handling such cases, noting the specific entities are not usually within FRC's scope but can be reclaimed.

The government response consists only of a title and page reference, providing no substantive engagement with the committee's recommendation for the Insolvency Service to consider potential breaches of fiduciary duties.

The government provided only a title for its response, completely failing to address the conclusion regarding Mr. Gupta's suitability for government support until GFG Alliance is restructured and audited accounts are published.

The government response expresses gratitude for the committee's agreement on not providing a grant to GFG Alliance, but does not address the observations regarding disputed future receivables or the Serious Fraud Office's investigation.

The government response expresses gratitude for the committee's agreement on not providing a grant to GFG Alliance, but does not address the concerns about high-risk financial practices undermining the steel industry.

The government's response thanks the Committee for agreement on the inappropriateness of a grant to GFG Alliance, without addressing the recommendation to investigate accounting rules for future or prospective receivables.

The government's response thanks the Committee for agreement on the inappropriateness of a grant to GFG Alliance, without addressing the conclusion regarding GFG Alliance's circular trading practices.

The government notes that the International Accounting Standards Board has proposed amendments to reporting supply chain finance, which the UK Endorsement Board and Financial Reporting Council will consider for adoption. The government also states it will continue to closely monitor Liberty Steel UK's restructuring and refinancing efforts.

The government welcomes the Committee's acknowledgment that BEIS acted properly and the British Business Bank operated independently, implicitly addressing the noted concerns about GFG Alliance and Wyelands Bank.

The government welcomes the Committee’s acknowledgment that BEIS acted properly and that the British Business Bank operated independently in the Greensill Capital accreditation process.

The government response consists only of a title and page reference, providing no substantive engagement with the committee's observations or questions.

The government response consists only of a title and page reference, providing no substantive engagement with the committee's recommendation to address high electricity prices.

The government's response was entirely unrelated to the recommendation, instead discussing the International Accounting Standards Board's project on supply chain finance.

The government's response discusses the IASB's project on supply chain finance and proposed accounting amendments, which does not address the committee's call for further support to reduce electricity costs for the steel industry.

The government's response was entirely unrelated to the recommendation, instead discussing the International Accounting Standards Board's project on supply chain finance.

The government's response discusses the IASB's project on supply chain finance and proposed accounting amendments, which does not address the committee's concerns about the Targeted Charging Review or Ofgem.

The government states that decisions on network charges, such as the Targeted Charging Review, are the responsibility of Ofgem, the independent energy market regulator, rather than the government itself.

The government notes its existing review of public procurement rules and the Social Value Model. The points raised by the Committee on steel procurement, including supply chain transparency and updating guidance, are under active consideration by the Steel Procurement Taskforce.

The government notes its existing review of public procurement rules and the Social Value Model. The specific recommendations, including updating the Procurement Policy Note and publishing new guidance on social and environmental considerations for steel purchases, are under active consideration by the Steel Procurement Taskforce.

The government notes the points on steel procurement and states the Steel Procurement Taskforce is actively considering improving data robustness and updating policy. It commits to working with departments to continuously improve data quality and simplify collection in the coming years, citing National Highways' commitment to provide 2022 data.

The government's response provided no content to address the recommendation for a requirement for all government projects to report on the value and origin of their steel requirements.

The government's response is boilerplate text about BEIS and the British Business Bank, failing to address the recommendation to introduce minimum UK steel content targets for major public projects.

The government's response is boilerplate text about BEIS and the British Business Bank, failing to address the conclusion about global steel market distortions and the need for a government response to trade divergence.

The government welcomed the committee's acknowledgment of BEIS and the British Business Bank's proper and independent actions, but did not address the recommendation for the Trade Remedies Authority to ensure future recommendations are informed by open dialogue with industry.

The government acknowledges the sector's decarbonisation plans, stating that the optimal route is a commercial decision for individual companies, and points to existing support mechanisms in the Net Zero Strategy.

The government states it is working with the steel sector to understand decarbonisation plans and highlights existing support through the Net Zero Strategy. It emphasizes that the optimal decarbonisation route is a commercial decision for companies, without committing to new specific actions to provide immediate certainty or direction.

The government states it is working with the sector to understand decarbonisation investment plans, noting that the optimal route is a commercial decision for companies, and points to existing support in the Net Zero Strategy for which the steel sector can bid, without committing to a specific hydrogen pilot.

The government's response addresses general concerns about high gas and electricity prices and ongoing industry engagement, completely failing to address the recommendation for a pilot of hydrogen-based steel production.

The government's response acknowledged energy price pressures and general industry engagement but did not address the recommendation for Ministers from BEIS and DEFRA to work with the UK Steel Council to optimise steel recycling in the UK.

The government acknowledged the pressures faced by businesses due to rising energy prices and stated that extensive engagement with industry continues, but did not commit to fundamental reform of energy pricing or a clear decarbonisation strategy.

The government acknowledged pressures from energy prices and noted ongoing engagement with industry but did not specifically commit to a broader, strategic approach to decarbonisation for the steel industry as suggested.

The government recognises the pressures on businesses due to energy prices and states that extensive engagement with industry is continuing across government.

The government recognizes the pressures on businesses and ongoing engagement with the industry but does not commit to establishing a new Sector Deal for the steel industry or providing a decarbonisation roadmap as recommended.