PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Protecting Steel in the UK - 23 January 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the need to decarbonise steel production; appreciates the pride that local communities have in their historic steelworks; regrets that the Government has pushed through plans for decarbonising steel in the UK which will result in thousands of steelworkers losing their jobs and risk leaving the UK as the first developed country in the world without the capacity to produce primary steel; further regrets that the Government has failed to produce an industrial strategy which could have included a plan for the whole steel sector; believes that primary steel is a sovereign capability and is therefore concerned about the impact that the Government’s plans could have on national security; also believes that steel production can have a bright future in the UK; therefore calls on the Government to work with industry and workers to achieve a transition that secures jobs and primary steelmaking for decades to come; and further calls on the Secretary of State for Business and Trade to report to Parliament by 27 February 2024 with an assessment of the impact on the UK of the loss of primary steel production capabilities.

Labour has secured this debate today because this is a hugely important issue. It is important not just because the future of the Port Talbot steelworks is integral to communities across south Wales—I know that many hon. Friends will be making that case passionately—but because it speaks to a much bigger challenge that we face as a country: how to decarbonise heavy industry in a way that is effective for our climate objectives and fair for our communities.

The Opposition believe that the Government’s push to decarbonise the steelworks at both Port Talbot and Scunthorpe, in a way that guarantees large job losses and has no support from the workforce or unions, risks irrevocably damaging working people’s trust in the opportunities the net zero transition could bring. We believe that it is a calamitous mistake for the UK to become, under the Conservatives, the first major economy in the world without the ability to make our own primary steel.

I intend to make the case today that the UK steel industry could have a strong future, but that requires a much better approach than the one we have seen so far.

I am cautious of doing so given the warning about time, but I will give way as I know my right hon. Friend has a significant interest in this.

It was a pleasure to visit the Shotton steelworks with my right hon. Friend last year, and he will know that it began as the Summers steelworks in Stalybridge in my constituency. He has much expertise, and I commend the argument and points he has put forward.

The decisions the Government have made will have consequences. They will have consequences for our national security and our resilience, and they risk leaving us exposed at a time of significant geopolitical instability.

I will take an intervention from the Government Benches and one more from the Labour Back Benches, if that is okay.

We have considerable expertise in that matter, and that grade of coal is no good for the current way steel is produced in the UK, but the right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the point because the Government justified that coalmine on that basis and have now made a series of decisions that, frankly, makes that look even more absurd.

Today I hope to make the case for Labour’s plans for an alternative way forward, an approach that is in no way based on misplaced nostalgia for the past but is instead based on hard-headed realities and an assessment of our national interest.

UK steel should have a bright future. It is not a sunset industry, and it is central to how a modern, low-carbon economy works. I ask the Minister, for whom I have considerable regard, to listen and engage today and to have a serious debate about what is about to happen and be willing to consider the alternative case. Let us please not trade boilerplate rebuttals or pre-scripted lines, but instead ask all colleagues to listen to the rational case being put forward, which is serious, pragmatic and important and one I genuinely believe any Conservative could agree with.

Of course, the decision has to be considered in conjunction with the one in Scunthorpe, and that is why this issue is so important and deserves the attention it is getting today.

I want to say one more thing by way of introduction. We have already heard from several Welsh colleagues, and the decision of the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary to refuse even to have a phone call with the First Minister of Wales about this matter was profoundly wrong. Anyone who is a supporter of the Union wants to see productive, effective relationships across all UK Governments, and the Prime Minister’s behaviour reflects extremely badly on him on this occasion.

I think that is a pathetic response. I mean no discourtesy, but that is pathetic. It is entirely reasonable for the First Minister of Wales to seek a conversation with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I will leave that there.

I acknowledge that in the Public Gallery we have many steelworkers who have made the journey here today, including men such as Alan, who has worked at Port Talbot for 40 years, as did his father and both his grandfathers, and Gary, who has worked there for 37 years, and whose son now works in the hot mill. We have men and women from Port Talbot, Scunthorpe and Trostre who started as apprentices. I want to thank them for the contribution that they and their families have made to the UK over many generations. Last year, I went several times to steel sites across Wales, and I met the workforce at Port Talbot when these plans were first announced. They deserve a lot better than what they are being offered right now. At a minimum, they deserve this place taking their case seriously and engaging with these issues with the respect and consideration they require.

I can give way one more time, to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham)

I agree entirely.

I will take an intervention from the Government Benches, then one from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), and then I will take no more.

I am not ignoring that investment; I am making the case that it is a bad deal and that there is a better deal for the resources available that would satisfy far more of our objectives and give a better future to Port Talbot.

I agree with that case. That is why this is such an important issue for Parliament to consider. I always acknowledge that there are parts of it that are difficult. Decarbonising industry is an urgent priority, but in some cases the technology is uncertain or expensive. It is my contention, however, that getting it right is more important than doing it quickly or necessarily at the cheapest cost. To state the obvious, we can decarbonise anything by shutting it down. The cheapest path will likely always involve outsourcing most of our industrial production to other places. If we do that—it is the Government’s plan for Port Talbot—we will spend millions of pounds, and we will see huge job losses and global emissions rise as we effectively offshore our emissions and then claim that is progress. That would be a fundamental political mistake with potentially enormous ramifications for the future of the transition to net zero. We should know that from our own past.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, when I was a child growing up in the north-east in the 1980s, there was a major transition. We saw the end of coalmining and shipbuilding and the old nationalised industries as we knew them then. Many colleagues across the UK have similar personal experiences. Nobody today would propose that the UK should have an economic or energy policy based around large-scale coalmining, but how we manage the transition is fundamental. In the past, as a country, we have got that wrong. Levelling up—supposedly the Government’s flagship policy—is surely a recognition that the scars of those years and the impact of deindustrialisation are still felt in many parts of the UK today, yet the Government risk making exactly the same mistakes all over again.

The decision of this Conservative Government to hand over half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money to make thousands of people redundant is quite simply a bad deal. It is a bad deal for workers, a bad deal for taxpayers and a bad deal for the future of our industrial sovereign capability. Worse than that, it sends a message that decarbonisation effectively means deindustrialisation. I put it to Conservative colleagues that if net zero becomes a zero-sum game for working people, that risks the very support that we need to achieve the transition. There must be public consent for the transition, and that requires our economy to benefit from better jobs and better opportunities. This is the real politics of getting net zero right: it is not imaginary meat taxes or made-up claims about seven bins but whether the transition is just and fair and delivers something for Britain’s workers. The Government’s plans so far are simply none of those things.

The race to decarbonise is a race for jobs and prosperity, and this could be a hugely significant time for steel. As the Minister knows, I have many criticisms of Government policy, and I believe that we have weak business investment, weak productivity and weak growth as a result. I recognise that the Port Talbot site is in a challenging financial position, but the Government have already recognised that uncompetitive energy prices need tackling. We have procurement rules in place that are seeing significant steel content from the UK in infrastructure projects, and we are getting close to carbon border adjustment mechanisms both here and in the EU, which will be a major development. CBAMs in particular will likely completely change the economics of the UK steel industry. There is no reason to believe that the UK cannot have a vibrant steel sector, so to make this irreversible decision now, when the policy background is clearly improving, seems odd indeed. Better options are on the table; anyone claiming otherwise is simply being disingenuous.

When it comes to Port Talbot, there is a specific alternative proposal available—the multi-union Syndex plan—which is not far off Tata’s original proposals, which were known as Project Kronus. Other proposals have also been put forward. All we ask is that the Government consider the issues involved and do not make any fundamental decisions that are irreversible.

It is widely accepted at Port Talbot that blast furnace No. 5 is at the end of its life and may need to close, but blast furnace No. 4 will not need to be relined until 2032. For the Government to force that furnace to close now, as we await the arrival of new technologies, is an act of economic vandalism. We acknowledge that electric arc furnaces are part of the answer, but we do not want to put all our eggs in one basket, which means being open to all technologies, and especially direct iron reduction, which is one of the most exciting possibilities.

The counter-arguments put forward so far are not robust. I believe that safety issues could be managed in the same way that they are every day at a major steelworks. The claim that 90% of what Port Talbot does could be met with an electric arc furnace does not stand up, as key products in packaging and automotive materials cannot be produced in one. At Scunthorpe, I understand that the lack of sufficient grid connections and the cancellation of the first carbon capture programme back in 2010 have severely limited the options available. Again, I ask the Government not to make irreversible decisions, to be open to all technologies and to recognise the growing importance of and demand for steel.

We are not the only country with these challenges, but everywhere we look, other countries are doing it better. Take the Netherlands, where Tata is in negotiations with the Government on DRI technology; Sweden, with the collaboration between SSAB, Vattenfall and LKAB; Canada, where ArcelorMittal signed an agreement some time ago to build a new green steel plant; or the news just in of a $5 billion investment in a new green steel plant in Saudi Arabia. Everywhere we look, other countries are seeing growth and investment in their steel sector, but we are seeing the opposite. I put the question to Ministers: why is the UK pursuing this path alone?

At Business and Trade oral questions, the Minister has been asked repeatedly—mostly by Government Members—about the assessment the Government have made of becoming the only major economy without primary domestic steel production. Her answers hint that she might get it, but the Government have ploughed on regardless. I ask her again: how can any Government possibly justify making thousands of workers redundant in the name of cutting our carbon footprint only to pay to ship in more carbon-intensive steel from halfway across the world?

It does not have to be this way. We cannot afford to blow this opportunity, repeat the mistakes of the 1980s and leave regional inequality entrenched—we can still see those scars. That is why I always say that, under Labour, decarbonisation will never mean deindustrialisation. I want green steel, and I believe that the workforce are our greatest asset in delivering that. Any real plan for green steel must cover the whole industry. It must be open to all technology that is available, and it should fundamentally be a story of new jobs, new opportunities, new exports and renewed British economic strength, rather than outsourcing our emissions and pretending that that is progress.

It is literally here in my hands. It is not hard to find. I say to Conservative colleagues that Google is their friend. I have tried to say that the plans are available, but we will be pragmatic and flexible. We are just asking that irreversible decisions are not made that limit the room for manoeuvre in future. On resources, we have earmarked £3 billion of investment from our spending plans to deliver this, all of which is predicated on unlocking much larger sums of private investment. The Government do not disagree with the case for putting money in, but the deal that they are putting forward for that half a billion pounds does not deliver very much at all. What a tragedy it would be in the future to find a Britain that is building homes and infrastructure again, with secure low-carbon energy generation and a new wave of floating offshore wind, but is not making the steel to provide those things.

Labour has a plan to build a better Britain, and we want to build it with steel made in Britain. We will only get one opportunity to get this right, and we must bring workers and steel communities with us. I will finish with what Gary Keogh, a steelworker from Port Talbot told me:

“The question for Tata and the UK Government is this—do we want to be a nation that makes goods, or a nation that imports them from heavily polluting countries? It is not too late for Tata and the UK Government to think again and change course, but time is…running out. If they fail to take a different path now, the people of South Wales will never forgive them, and history won’t forgive them either. There is so much at stake for all of us.”

Well said, Gary.

I am asking the Minister—quite honestly, I am begging her—to consider the arguments and what is really value for money, and not to make decisions that are irreversible and prevent a far better outcome in future. To Britain’s steelworkers, I say that I know how desperate things feel right now and how angry people are, but there are those of us who get it, who understand what this industry is and why it is important. Given the opportunity, we will deliver the future for steel and the right transition that we all know is essential for our future prosperity, security and wellbeing.

I very much recognise the case that the Minister makes for Tata’s investment in the UK, but will she just be clear with the House on whether the subsidy package for Port Talbot that we are talking about is in any way linked to the subsidy package and the decision to build the gigafactory in Somerset?