Rolls-Royce reactor deal raises fears British steel could be excluded from project
Rolls-Royce has signed a major contract to begin work on the UK’s first small modular nuclear reactors, but the deal has sparked controversy amid concerns that British steel could be excluded from the project.
The agreement between Rolls-Royce SMR and Great British Energy marks a significant step forward, allowing detailed design and procurement to begin on reactors set to be built at Wylfa in Anglesey. The project, valued at £6 billion, is expected to play a key role in the UK’s future energy strategy.
However, the announcement has drawn criticism due to uncertainty over where key materials will be sourced. While the Government has stated that around 70% of materials must come from British sources, there is no clear guarantee that this will include structural or specialist steel required for the reactors.
This lack of clarity has raised alarm among industry figures and politicians, particularly in Sheffield, where the government-owned Forgemasters steelworks is seen as a potential supplier for the project.
Concerns have intensified following reports that CEZ, a Czech state-owned company partnering with Rolls-Royce, is advocating for reactor components to be manufactured in the Czech Republic rather than in the UK.
Former Sheffield MP Richard Caborn expressed disappointment at the absence of a firm commitment to British steel. He warned that failing to use domestic materials would send a damaging signal about confidence in the UK’s industrial capabilities.
“If Rolls-Royce don’t use British steel and British forgings, this will be a massive vote of no confidence to British industry,” he said.
Caborn, alongside Labour MP Clive Betts, has called on ministers to revise procurement requirements to ensure that UK steel producers, particularly Forgemasters, are given a central role in the project.
They argue that directing work to British manufacturers could provide a significant boost to the domestic steel sector, supporting jobs and strengthening supply chains. As the steelworks are owned by the Ministry of Defence, there are also calls for taxpayer-funded assets to benefit directly from the investment.
The concern is that without specific guarantees, the 70% British sourcing requirement could be met through less critical materials, such as concrete, rather than high-value steel components.
Despite the controversy, the project itself is being positioned as a major economic opportunity. It is expected to create around 3,000 jobs in Anglesey and the surrounding area, with a further 5,000 roles across the UK.
Rolls-Royce SMR chief executive Chris Cholerton described the deal as vital for the country’s energy security, emphasising its potential to strengthen the UK supply chain and support long-term growth.
Industry representatives have also acknowledged the importance of the project. Gareth Stace, director general of UK Steel, described it as a significant step towards achieving the UK’s clean energy ambitions.
The debate highlights the tension between global collaboration and domestic industry priorities. While international partnerships can bring investment and expertise, they can also raise questions about how much of the economic benefit remains within the UK.
At the centre of the issue is a broader question about industrial strategy. Critics argue that major infrastructure projects funded or supported by the government should prioritise domestic production wherever possible, particularly in sectors such as steel that have faced ongoing challenges.
As the project moves into its next phase, pressure is likely to grow on ministers to provide greater clarity on sourcing decisions. For many, the outcome will serve as a test of the government’s commitment to supporting British industry.
With billions of pounds at stake and thousands of jobs linked to the project, the decisions made in the coming months could have lasting implications for both the UK’s energy future and its manufacturing base.