Question follow-through · 17057
Net Zero Teesside Power: Iron and Steel
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what assessment his Department has made of the potential merits of reviewing public procurement policy to (a) incentivise and (b) require greater use of UK-made steel in publicly funding projects in th
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Department for Business and Trade
- Tabled
- 8 Jul 2026
- Target answer date
- 13 Jul 2026
- Answer
- 14 Jul 2026 · 6 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots · 15 Jul 2026
- Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 · 15 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
8 Jul 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what assessment his Department has made of the potential merits of reviewing public procurement policy to (a) incentivise and (b) require greater use of UK-made steel in publicly funding projects in th
13 Jul 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
14 Jul 2026
Answer published
The Government knows it is important to communities across the country that we use UK-made steel. We are ambitious about increasing the use of UK made steel in UK energy and infrastructure projects where possible.Net Zero Teesside is not a public procurem...
Official data retrieved 28 Sept 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.