(4 days, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberI am pleased for the chance to address this issue. The importance of Grangemouth is why this Labour Government have pledged £200 million to secure its long-term future. It is an important asset, but it is not the only remaining refinery; it is one of three crackers in the United Kingdom—that is important. Specifically, it is not a comparable situation, and the behaviour of the company is not comparable to the case of British Steel.
I also say to the right hon. Member, and indeed to all Members, that this is why we fought and fought again to secure the future of British shipbuilding by saving all four of the Harland and Wolff sites in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member will know that the commercial interest was not in the Scottish yards, but we held them together precisely because of our commitment to Scotland and the Union. It is also why within weeks of taking office we secured a better deal for the workers at Port Talbot. We have repeatedly acted, and we will continue to act no matter how hard the circumstances.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the failure of the Tories and the SNP to develop an industrial strategy for Scotland meant that they had no plan for Grangemouth? They knew for over a decade about the problems at the refinery and did nothing. Does he agree that as soon as Labour came into power, we got to work and delivered support for the site, the workforce and the local community?
I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments entirely. I do not believe there is a history of the SNP calling for the nationalisation of Grangemouth. It was, as ever, on the bandwagon. I think we all recognise that the SNP does not campaign on its record in running Scotland; it campaigns on grievance. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the contrast is with a Labour Government in this place who are on the side of working people everywhere.
It is a privilege to follow such an impressive speech from the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald). I am sure his constituents will be incredibly impressed at his knowledge of this issue. I want to be kind not just to him but to the Secretary of State, once again. That is becoming a habit that I want to break, but certainly his sincerity today cannot be doubted. If there is one person who could be afforded the executive powers in this Bill with an element of trust, it is probably him.
There are some topics that have not been touched on in a huge amount of detail today and I will touch on them briefly now. Whether it is tariffs, competition or energy prices, we must not forget the fundamentals of why the steel industry faces such a challenging position. There is one other hugely important issue that has not been discussed at any length in the Chamber today, notwithstanding the future contribution that I imagine will be made by the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman)—it will not pass the lips of any other Members—which is the situation in Grangemouth. I say “the situation in Grangemouth” with an element of despair, because we all know that there are hundreds of people who are on the brink of losing their jobs.
The similarities are astounding. We have PetroChina on the one hand and a Chinese company in Scunthorpe on the other. We have a Chinese company in Scunthorpe saying that there are losses of around £700,000 and we have a Chinese company at Grangemouth saying that there are losses of around £500,000. We have a cracker in Grangemouth that has been deemed not useful anymore and we have blast furnaces in Scunthorpe that are categorised in the same manner. We all need to be conscious of those comparisons.
I say that on the basis that while the Secretary of State is right to say that this is important for jobs in Scunthorpe, this is right for the communities in Scunthorpe and this is right for Westminster’s national, UK-wide interest, is it not the case that it is important to the workers in Grangemouth? Is it not the case that it is important to the communities in Grangemouth? And is it not the case that it is in Scotland’s national interest that Grangemouth is protected?
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberI am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for his support for what we have announced. Having a competitive environment is an absolutely key issue. I am already having extensive conversations with the Chancellor and key Cabinet colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, about the way to do that not just in the short term but in the longer term, when we will clearly have a significant renewable energy base. There are a lot of exciting options available, including in how we use some of that capacity in areas of low consumer demand. I can tell him that that is a key priority for getting this right in future.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the deal that he has announced. As a former British trade commissioner to India, I assure him that it is a better deal from a better and more serious Government than the Conservative Government. Will he tell the House what direct conversations he has had with Tata about future investments in the UK?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although I know that the workforce has, at times, been frustrated by Tata’s plans, I understand why Tata itself was frustrated by the previous Government and how long it took to do the deal. In opposition, I had extensive conversations with Tata to build the kind of relationship that has been necessary to deliver something like this. I met executive chair Chandra at Davos and then flew to Mumbai, as colleagues may remember, to build that relationship. I also saw him yesterday, alongside the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, because he was in the United Kingdom. We are continuing those conversations and working with all partners to deliver the kind of opportunities that we think will be available in the UK in future.