Oral Answers to Questions
Nia Griffith Excerpts(2 days, 11 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Oliver Dowden
I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. We dealt explicitly with this in both the integrated review and the integrated review refresh, which set out a co-ordinated approach and are clear about the threats we face from hostile states—Russia, North Korea, Iran and indeed China. We are very clear about the threats China poses to our economic security and our democratic institutions, and that is why we have taken a range of actions, including for the first time directly attributing attacks to China and imposing sanctions in respect of them.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
With local and national elections on the horizon, it is vital that voters can have full confidence in the integrity of our electoral system. With that in mind, what assessment has the Department made of the risks posed by deepfakes and misinformation in the upcoming elections?
Oliver Dowden
I have considerable concerns about deepfakes being used in the upcoming elections. We have seen hack and leak being used as a tactic by hostile states in previous elections, and we have to take into account deepfake capabilities, particularly enhanced by artificial intelligence. That is why we are developing our strategy through the Defending Democracy Taskforce and undertaking exercises right now to enhance our capabilities. It is, however, a challenge to all citizens not necessarily to take images to be true on first sight, because of adversaries’ enhanced capability.
Infected Blood Inquiry
Nia Griffith Excerpts(4 days, 11 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) on securing an urgent question on this vital issue. Nobody could fail to be moved by the scale of the horror and injustice of this scandal. The latest revelations about apparent experiments on children, to which the urgent question relates, are truly appalling and show yet again how badly the victims have been let down. I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned so hard on the issue.
As part of delivering the justice that is so long overdue, the Government must now deliver on the compensation scheme. Time is of the essence: every week that passes without further Government action matters. Those who were infected with contaminated blood are dying at a rate of one every four days. Ministers have repeatedly accepted the moral case for compensation, but victims understandably have little faith and want to see firm action. That is why Labour was very disturbed to hear that the Government have tabled an amendment to undo the cross-party changes to the Victims and Prisoners Bill passed by this House in December last year. The changes that the Government want would have the effect of removing a clear commitment to delivering on the compensation scheme within three months of the Bill’s passing—yet another missed opportunity; yet another delay.
I would be grateful if the Minister answered the following questions. Will the Government now consider accepting the cross-party consensus of establishing a clear three-month limit for the setting up of the scheme? Can the Minister confirm when victims can expect to receive final compensation payments following the publication of Sir Brian Langstaff’s review?
Access to Redress Schemes
Nia Griffith Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Members who secured this debate and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) who opened it and raised some very important issues in respect of delivering appropriate redress schemes in a timely manner.
Today, we have heard from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) about vaccine damage and from the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) about the Post Office and the constraints of non-disclosure agreements. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has brought his expertise and track record of campaigning to the Chamber to speak on the Post Office and the miners’ compensation schemes. And we heard from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on a saving scheme and the missed opportunities by the watchdog to prevent people from becoming victims of that scheme.
By definition, those who are eligible for redress schemes will already have suffered detriment, and many, as we have seen with the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal, will have spent years battling for recognition and justice, and suffering avoidable hardship. We therefore owe it to them to ensure that we get the redress schemes right, and that they are set up as promptly as possible and operate as efficiently as possible, while ensuring that we protect the public purse from fraudulent claims. Learning from previous schemes, so that we are not constantly reinventing the wheel or repeating mistakes, and building up corporate expertise are therefore of vital importance. Each scheme will, however, have its own complexities and sensitivities, and it is important that they are fully recognised.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham highlighted, victims should be at the centre of designing redress schemes. The National Audit Office produced a briefing in 2008, building on the experience of some previous compensation schemes, such as the miners’ chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and vibration white finger schemes, which are all too familiar to my right hon. Friend, to me and to other colleagues who represent former coalmining areas. The NAO briefing stressed the importance of the right governance and project management, committing sufficient effort and appropriate skills to setting up schemes, considering the capacity needed, designing out the likely bottlenecks or delays, and being prepared to deal with external pressures. There may well be further lessons to learn since then. In January, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, asked the National Audit Office to
“conduct a thematic review of government compensation and financial redress schemes”,
and the National Audit Office agreed to do so. I look forward to reading that report.
Sadly, as we have seen in instances such as Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal, long before getting to any form of redress scheme, actually getting to the truth in the first place can be an uphill struggle, with victims vilified, shamed, shunned, imprisoned and financially ruined. On 6 December last year, when the Government published their response to the Hillsborough report, the Opposition, along with the victims’ families, were bitterly disappointed that the Government stopped short of proposing a Hillsborough law, which is why I raised it at Prime Minister’s questions that day. This week, we marked the 35th anniversary of Hillsborough tragedy. As hon. Members will have heard, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised the proposed law again with the Prime Minister yesterday, but we still received no positive response.
The purpose of a Hillsborough law would be to prevent such a hideous cover-up by the authorities, which was an appalling affront to the survivors and the devastated families of those who died, and left them having to struggle for far longer to get justice. The purpose of the proposed Hillsborough law would be to put a legal responsibility on public officials to tell the truth in any form of formal inquiry or proceeding, and to ensure that individuals would face criminal sanctions if they breached that law. To be honest, it is extraordinary that that is not already the case. Importantly, the proposed Hillsborough law would also provide victims with parity of legal funding in inquests. That would avoid the sort of David and Goliath situation where victims simply cannot afford to challenge the authorities.
All public bodies need to be open-minded and even-handed when considering complaints or hearing from whistleblowers, and not rush to cover up and silence concerns, and hound whistleblowers out of organisations. Those in charge of public bodies need to contemplate the thought that mistakes may have been made, systems may be at fault, and there may be individuals who do not hold to the ideals of public service, or inappropriate cultures within an organisation. Often, early recognition and acknowledgment of a problem could help to bring justice sooner to victims, prevent further victims and ultimately save the public purse. Instead, it seems to take years of struggle, heartbreak, investigative journalism and even TV dramas before the victims’ voices are heard and believed, and justice is delivered. In terms of whistleblowers, I think of the senior paediatrician in the Letby case who raised concerns. Even though he was a senior paediatrician, his concerns were dismissed, and Letby went on to murder again—all the more tragic, because it could have been avoided.
To return to the redress schemes, it is all very well looking at best practice and trying to build on previous experience to streamline matters and avoid reinventing the wheel. Skilled civil servants can have the very best guidelines in the world, but without political will from the Government to prioritise, victims will continue to wait, and sadly some may never live to receive their compensation.
Mrs Hodgson
On whether people survive to get justice, I draw attention to Baroness Cumberlege’s “First Do No Harm” report on the harm caused by mesh, sodium valproate and Primodos. A lot of those victims are already dying. My mam is one of the victims of mesh. She will be 80 in January, and I hope that she lives to see some compensation and redress. Does my hon. Friend agree that these things really have to be sped up, because it is not fair? When people have been harmed, in this case by the state through medical interventions, redress should be forthcoming quickly.
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an important point.
Recently, the Government have dithered and delayed on three high-profile redress schemes. I will turn first to the Windrush scandal, which revealed the huge injustices in our citizenship and nationality system. The scheme was set up in 2018, but a Home Affairs Committee report in 2021 pointed out that in early 2021, the average time from claim to payment was some 434 days. Even in February this year, the Home Office’s own data showed that some 14% of live claims were dragging on for more than six months.
As we have made clear in this House, Labour is determined to ensure that the Windrush generation and families get the compensation and justice that they are owed. If necessary, we would place the Windrush compensation scheme outside the Home Office if it continued to fail. Labour has plans to restart and improve community engagement and outreach work to encourage applications to the scheme and speed up compensation payments, to ensure that every victim gets every penny of the compensation that they deserve. As part of our commitment to the recommendations of the Wendy Williams review, Labour would establish a Windrush commissioner to monitor the compensation scheme and the re-establishment of the major change programme and the Windrush unit within the Home Office, and to be a voice for the families affected, to ensure that a scandal like Windrush can never happen again.
Mr Kevan Jones
My heart drops at the idea of another commissioner. The point, which my hon. Friend made earlier, is that we need Ministers who will drive things forward. A good example is the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who on a number of occasions I have called a poacher turned gamekeeper. He did excellent work on the banking scandal, and he has driven things forward because he is a Minister who actually cares about the victims and is prepared to make tough decisions within Government.
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed. Without political will, things cannot be driven forward. As my right hon. Friend says, ministerial intervention is crucial.
I turn to the infected blood scandal. The Opposition were disturbed to hear the news yesterday evening that the Government are yet again delaying the compensation scheme by trying to remove from the Victims and Prisoners Bill a requirement to set one up within three months of the Bill’s becoming law—yet another missed opportunity, yet another delay. In 2022, Sir Robert Francis KC produced his report “Compensation and Redress for the Victims of Infected Blood—Recommendations for a Framework”. In April last year—a whole year ago—Sir Brian Langstaff produced his second interim report of the infected blood inquiry. As the Minister knows, there is absolutely no reason why the Government cannot go ahead with setting up a scheme before the publication of the final report on 20 May.
Time is of the essence. Every week that passes without further Government action matters. Those who were infected with contaminated blood are dying at a rate of one every four days. The Labour party wants to ensure that justice and compensation for victims and their families are delivered as a matter of the utmost urgency, but we have still not heard the Government’s final decision on compensation. They tell us that they will not make public any final details until after the publication of the final report in May. I urge them yet again to speed up the process of delivering justice to victims and their families, including by getting on with the work needed to set up the structure of the compensation scheme, so that victims are compensated as soon as possible.
The Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill affords us the chance to make a huge stride in righting the wrongs of the past, and we on the Labour Benches are pleased to give it our full support.
This has been an interesting and informative debate. The Government should always try to learn from past experience and do their utmost to get redress schemes right, making them transparent and easily accessible to victims while protecting the public purse.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nia Griffith Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Michelle Donelan
We want to garnish the opportunities of AI for the British public, which include the comple- mentary aspect that it can pose for jobs, especially in teaching and medicine, by taking away some of the admin and bureaucracy. We are also very realistic that technology always changes labour market needs. In 1940, 60% of the jobs we now have did not exist. That is why we have undergone a revolution in our skills system, including the launch of the lifelong learning entitlement next year.
Dame Nia Griffith
It is all very well the Government saying that they will take their time over this response, but the point is that the Federation of Small Businesses is saying that a regulatory framework is urgent, and Dr Rogoyski of the University of Surrey is pointing out that delay could mean the UK probably having no choice but to follow the approach of the US and Europe on AI regulation. Can the Secretary of State set out exactly what the timeframe will be for regulation?
Michelle Donelan
The hon. Member is getting confused between regulation and legislation. We already have a plethora of regulation and world-leading regulators that we are supporting. We were clear in our White Paper response that we will legislate—as will every nation around the world—but we want to get that legislation right. She commented on the US’s approach. We are working hand in glove with the US, and I signed the world’s first memorandum of understanding on AI institutes just a few weeks ago.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nia Griffith Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I am absolutely astonished—I really am astonished—at the complacency about the impact on UK food bills, because the Government’s own projections say that this border scheme will cost UK businesses some £330 million per year, while the British Chambers of Commerce has highlighted charges for EU goods coming into the UK. What assessment has the Minister made of the full inflationary impact of these measures on UK food bills, and with further checks due to start in April, what preparations are in hand to prevent a repeat of the chaotic scenes at our ports that we have seen before on this Government’s watch?
Mr Baker
Alas that there are disease outbreaks in the European Union and alas that food is circulating that does not comply with EU standards. I hope to protect the people of Wycombe and the whole United Kingdom from unsafe pork and chicken, and to ensure that we do not end up vulnerable to things such as the horsemeat scandal. As I understand it, the Labour party wishes to revert to the regime we had when we were an EU member state by aligning with the EU on sanitary and phytosanitary matters. I remember very well the horsemeat scandal that arose, and I do not want to see anything like that occur again.
I would just point out that an outbreak of African swine fever would be a fundamental threat to the viability of our pig industry. Foot and mouth cost British businesses £12.8 billion, at 2022 prices, in 2001. The cost of ash dieback is forecast to be £15 billion to the UK. I think we need to take seriously the need to protect our borders and the need to check these medium to high-risk products, and that is what this Government will responsibly do.
Steel Industry: Wales
Nia Griffith Excerpts(2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the steel industry in Wales.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. First I want to express my gratitude to Mr Speaker for allowing this debate on the very important matter of the future of the steel industry in Wales, particularly as we were limited by time constraints during our debate on steel four weeks ago.
The news that we have had over the past few months has been devastating, with Port Talbot set to bear the brunt of Tata’s plans to shed 2,800 jobs across the UK. With so many jobs going in such a short time, the effect will reverberate right across south Wales, because the number of people affected will be far greater. That will include all the families of the workers, the loss of work for the contractors and the suppliers connected to the plant, and the massive loss of spending power in the community, with the knock-on effects that that will have on local businesses.
I pay tribute to the trade unions that have been working hard to present alternative plans to preserve jobs, keep primary steelmaking in the UK and facilitate a just transition to the green primary steel of the future. I urge both Tata and the UK Government to look again at those plans.
We stand today at a real crossroads for the steel industry in Wales and the UK. We have the opportunity to be at the forefront of the new green industrial revolution, or to allow ourselves to slide into a second-rate position to be left behind as the only country in the G20 that does not have primary steelmaking facilities. I will return to the bigger picture of steelmaking across Wales later. I know that many of my hon. Friends will talk about it, but I want to focus specifically on the future of the Tata tinplate plant at Trostre in my constituency of Llanelli.
Wales has a proud industrial history. Llanelli has thrived on the production of coal, iron, steel, copper and tinplate. The tinplate industry was already established in Llanelli in the 18th century. By the 19th century, 80% of the world’s tinplate was produced in south Wales, with Llanelli the tinplate capital of the world. Today’s Tata plant at Trostre in Llanelli makes a variety of different materials that go on to be used in a range of products—from the tin can that contains the baked beans that we buy to the compounds used to make the aerosol cans on our bathroom shelf.
Forgive me if I sing the praises of the humble tin can: a practical, versatile and green product. It is eminently recoverable and recyclable. Food in sealed cans keeps for months and does not need to be in the freezer or even the fridge—a great advantage for those who cannot afford to run a freezer or have no access to one. Food in tin cans tends to be cheaper than food in other forms of packaging. Furthermore, those in dire straits can even resort to eating tinned products cold without the need to afford the energy costs to heat them. It is little wonder that in hard times, covid and the cost of living crisis, sales of tinned products have held up. By the way, back in 1935, Felinfoel Brewery in Llanelli was home to the first canned beer in the UK and one of the first canned beers in Europe.
Trostre currently receives its steel from Port Talbot, just 20 miles down the railway track. That makes good economic and environmental sense. Most importantly, Trostre workers know that they can depend on the consistency and quality of the steel that comes from Port Talbot. Tata tells us that when it closes the blast furnaces at Port Talbot in the short term before the electric arc furnace is built, it will import steel to supply the Trostre plant. That will be imported steel made in blast furnaces abroad, so there will not be any saving in carbon emissions—quite the opposite. Processes abroad might be dirtier, and then there are the costs and emissions associated with transporting the steel to Trostre.
The challenge will be to source the appropriate quality of steel to satisfy Trostre’s needs. As Trostre makes a number of products and serves a number of different customers, that means steel of the right quality to satisfy all those requirements. As we can imagine, workers at Trostre are very anxious to know that deals for supplies of quality steel have all been sorted out before anyone even thinks about switching off the blast furnace in Port Talbot. They and I know that the works manager and his colleagues at Trostre are doing all they can to assess potential sources, but inevitably, instead of the security that we currently enjoy with our supply from Port Talbot, people are feeling worried.
Importing steel means that there are far more unknowns. We will be more vulnerable to logistical difficulties or price fluctuations; if there is a shortage of supply, foreign producers may prioritise their home customers. What talks has the Minister had with bosses at Tata about where they will be sourcing the imported steel for Trostre, what guarantees they can give that the quality will satisfy all the requirements at Trostre, when they expect the first shipments to arrive, and what risk assessments and contingency plans they have drawn up to cope with challenges such as price fluctuations or a tightening of the market if other countries want to prioritise their own needs? Will she also tell us how imported supplies will be affected by the carbon border adjustment mechanism?
The Government have promised half a billion pounds for Tata to develop an electric arc furnace. Will the Minister tell us whether there is any conditionality attached to that loan in respect of Trostre? In other words, is its availability to Tata contingent not just on building an electric arc furnace but on securing short-term supplies for Trostre—and, indeed, Shotton—and safe- guarding jobs there?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. She is right to say that the job losses at Tata Steel affect Wales, but they also affect the ability of the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to manufacture steel for our businesses. Does she agree that the production of British steel, which is of the highest quality, needs greater governmental support to ensure it can compete with steel imports from other nations? Does she further agree that the steel sector can provide employment throughout the UK, and that it should be encouraged to do so?
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been five asks from the steel industry over many years, which encompass those issues.
Tata says that for safety reasons it is not possible to keep the blast furnace going until its proposed large electric arc furnace is up and running. However, there have been other suggestions, including starting with a smaller electric arc furnace, which could be built while blast furnace is maintained. What discussions has the Minister had with Tata about keeping at least one blast furnace going in Port Talbot until an electric arc furnace is up and running?
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
We are all aware of the risk to the 2,800 jobs at Port Talbot and elsewhere. We need to be highly alert to the fact that the one blast furnace is part of ensuring that there is a just transition for the community. Other communities in Wales are facing losses—including the farming community, which will face 5,500 job losses if the Welsh Labour Government bring in the sustainable farming scheme, and the just transition is exactly the same issue.
I am sure the hon. Lady will join me in asking the Minister and other Governments to ensure a just transition for communities across Wales that have experienced decades of suffering because transitions have not been carried out properly as a key part of ensuring the industries of all our communities.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that interventions should be brief and on the subject of the steel industry in Wales.
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed, we do seek a just transition for the steel industry.
Of course, it is not just Trostre that Port Talbot supplies. If, as current plans indicate, the idea is to close the blast furnaces several years before the electric arc furnace is ready, all the downstream customers will need supplies. The Government could argue that if Tata closes the blast furnace in 2024 or 2025 but does not have an electric arc furnace up and running before 2027, how it bridges that gap, how it sources supplies elsewhere and how it keeps its customers happy are its problem. However, if those supplies are not there, downstream businesses could go out of business, causing huge job losses. It would be catastrophic for us in Llanelli to lose Trostre. Because the Government are putting half a billion pounds in, and because of the worry about job losses, they should seek assurances from Tata about Trostre, which is why I asked the Minister that question.
We accept that the electric arc furnace has a role to play. Indeed, CELSA Steel UK in Cardiff, a very successful business, produces steel from an electric arc furnace. However, there is work to be done to assess the suitability of the steel produced in electric arc furnaces to meet all the requirements of the products produced in Trostre. It is not as simple as throwing any old scrap into the electric arc furnace; clearly, the quality of the source material is important. I understand that a certain amount of metallics are required, which are not necessarily easy to source. We currently export scrap steel, and it is easy to see the logic of recycling that steel here in electric arc furnaces. However, we cannot assume that all that scrap steel will just turn up at the electric arc furnace in Port Talbot or at the one that I understand is planned for Scunthorpe: it must be sourced.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an absolutely excellent speech. Picking up on her point, there is a need to sweeten the mix in an electric arc furnace with iron ore-based metallics; otherwise, there is no way that we can make the high-value products such as those for the automotive sector and tin cans. Is she aware that only 3% of the world’s iron ore-based metallics are in a pellet form that can be transported across the world and put into an electric arc furnace? Does she therefore agree that by far the best option would be to keep blast furnace 4 going so that we can continue to produce the ore-based metallics for the electric arc furnace, because with 3% of the global supply there is no way that that will be possible?
Dame Nia Griffith
I absolutely agree.
The Minister has previously referred to steel as “infinitely recyclable”. It is indeed a marvellous material, which is so much easier to recover and recycle than many other materials. However, while the lifecycle of a tin can may be a matter of months, steel used in car manufacturing or construction will be tied up in those products for many years to come. I very much hope that we will see an increase in investment in infrastructure projects.
We on the Opposition side have plans to make the UK a clean energy superpower. We have so much potential in Wales, with the prospect of building floating offshore wind farms in the Celtic sea and using Port Talbot and Milford Haven to deliver and service those projects. It is just a pity that through either incompetence or stubbornness the Government have wasted a year failing to get any takers for floating offshore wind because of the unrealistically low strike price offered.
Increased renewables and increased use of electricity mean upgrading the national grid structure. We need investment in our railways, housing, hospitals and so on. Have the Minister or her Department made any assessment of how much steel the UK is likely to need in the coming decade? How much of that steel will be used for short-term products that will reach the scrap market fairly quickly, and how much will be locked in infrastructure that we hope will last for decades?
Returning to the broader picture, while I recognise the contribution that the electric arc furnace can make, it is bitterly disappointing that the Government plans look likely to leave the UK as the only country in the G20 without primary steelmaking. While countries across Europe have been working on greening the primary steelmaking process using technologies such as direct reduced iron and green hydrogen—indeed, Sweden will start production in 2025—the UK Government have not supported any such venture.
There is huge competition out there to woo investment in the green technologies of the future, whether it is the US Inflation Reduction Act or similar incentives in the EU. When we look at the €2.5 billion that Germany has invested in developing green primary steel, hon. Members will understand why we in the Labour party say that that is the sort of sum needed and why, if we were in government, we would look to invest a total of some £3 billion in the industry, rather than this Government’s £500 million.
The reasons why we now face the end of primary steelmaking in the UK must include the failure of the Government to respond adequately to the asks of the steel industry, which it has set out so clearly time and again. We have pointed out, time and again, how much cheaper energy costs are in countries such as France and Germany, while in the UK there have been specific negotiated packages.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate and on her leadership on the issue. It seems that the only hope is to try to persuade Tata to delay some of the implementation of its plans until the change of Government, we all assume, by the end of the year.
As the hon. Lady mentioned, there is an alternative proposal from the Labour party for investment in the steel industry. Does she agree that there is a potential role for the Welsh Government to negotiate with Tata? As they sit on the transition board, they would have close relations with Tata executives to put forward the Labour plan, which would be ready to be implemented this time next year.
Dame Nia Griffith
Anyone who can have influence over Tata would be welcome to make those suggestions.
A moment ago, I was talking about specific negotiated packages that this UK Government have offered. Although there have been those packages, we can see why when steel and high-energy industries make decisions, they cannot rely on limping from package to another but need long-term security with low energy prices, requiring substantial measures from the Government such as massive investment in renewables and reform of the energy market. We in Llanelli look across at IJmuiden in the Netherlands, where Tata has a tin plant works similar to ours. However, in close proximity to IJmuiden, Tata will keep a blast furnace open and develop a direct reduced iron facility. This is the reality we are facing: greater investment for the future going elsewhere. The UK Government need to ask themselves why. I hope that in responding today the Minister will answer my specific questions about the challenges facing Tata’s tinplate works at Trostre, as well as the broader issues facing the steel industry across Wales.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
I call Christina Rees —and happy birthday!
The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It is an absolute pleasure, Sir Gary, to serve under your chairmanship.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) on securing this important debate and on speaking so powerfully on behalf of her constituents, many of whom, as she said, are directly affected by the proposed closure of the blast furnaces at Port Talbot. It was lovely to have on the record the importance of the history of steelmaking, especially the creation of tin cans and canned beer, which is something new to me that I will try to take forward somehow.
All hon. Members here in Westminster Hall today have recognised how vital it is that we have a competitive and thriving steel industry, not just for jobs at the Port Talbot and Trostre plants but because of how important steel is to the broader Welsh economy and its future. I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to this debate. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, had to make it so political, but I will try to address as many of the points that have been raised as I can in my reply.
First, however, let me start by expressing my heartfelt sympathy for the hardworking employees across Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom who are affected by Tata Steel’s announcement. Undoubtedly, these are challenging and turbulent times for everyone involved, not only the workers but their families and the communities in which they live. Steel has played a pivotal role in modern Welsh history and Welsh people take immense pride in their industry and workforce. This Government are working hard to secure a long-term sustainable future for Welsh steelmaking and to grow the legacy of this cornerstone industry.
The concerns expressed throughout this debate are indeed our concerns; they are shared by hon. Members across the House. They have been expressed by the Government in our negotiations with Tata. We are indeed holding Tata to account. The transition board has been mentioned and we are ensuring that the transition is managed properly, so that every employee receives the support they deserve.
That is why the Government are making a significant investment of £80 million towards the dedicated transition board; Tata is also contributing £20 million. The board includes representatives from this House, the Welsh Government, the local council and other key areas to ensure that the local community is well represented and supported through this period of change.
In addition, Tata Steel has committed a further £130 million towards a comprehensive support package to assist impacted employees. This Government are indeed working hard to ensure that help and support are there for those who need it throughout this disruptive period.
I will be present at those transition board meetings, as will the unions, which I meet regularly. In fact, I believe I met the unions just this week. I forget exactly when, because my weeks blur into one, but regular meetings with the unions are taking place. The point about ensuring that we are involved in constructive dialogue stands, is noted and is on the record. At the same time, however, we must not forget the context that led Tata to make this decision, because the alternative, regardless of the politics being played out, could have led to no steelmaking at Port Talbot.
Dame Nia Griffith
Does the Minister recognise that many of the investment decisions have been taken because over the past few years the difference between energy prices here in the UK and in other countries across Europe, such as France and Germany, have had a significant impact?
Ms Ghani
The hon. Member always makes very thoughtful interventions. It is true that energy prices have spiked, partly because of what is happening in Ukraine, and that is most definitely a challenge, but the support that we are providing Tata is the largest grant that has ever been made available to the steel industry. That was not done under the Labour Government, but under this Conservative Government providing the widest and deepest level of support to the steel sector.
Dame Nia Griffith
Does the Minister acknowledge that the issue of energy prices pre-dates the events that happened in Ukraine two years ago?
Ms Ghani
Energy prices are a component. There is also the challenge that customers and users are seeking cleaner steel and the challenge of managing blast furnaces that are coming to the end of their life. It is a complicated scenario, but, because of the support that we have provided and the transition board that is focused on supporting the staff, there will continue to be steelmaking in Port Talbot.
Dame Nia Griffith
I thank all my Labour colleagues for a comprehensive picture of the steel industry right across south Wales. We are all very concerned: from Llanwern through to Port Talbot through to Trostre in Llanelli, and all our communities across south Wales. I thank the Minister for her responses, but I hope that she will take away and reflect on our points and questions, and look again at what more can be done to make us a steelmaking champion of the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of the steel industry in Wales.
Ministerial Severance: Reform
Nia Griffith Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to wind up this debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and other Opposition Members have laid out very clearly why we need reform and why rules that never envisioned the churn and chaos that we have seen over the past 18 months need to be tightened up.
We have heard from numerous Opposition Members and one or two Government Members as well. The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), emphasised just how out of touch this Government are, reminding us of the stark choices that many of our constituents have to make between heating and eating. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) described the case of the three assistant Whips getting two and a half times more in severance pay than they did in salary, taking away some £4,479 each, whereas under our reforms they would only be entitled to £454. He also made the point very clearly that under the leadership of a Labour Government we had 2% growth, whereas, sadly, under this Government we have seen only 1%, which has a huge knock-on effect for all our constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) also made reference to the hardship faced by her constituents, who are being hammered by record peacetime tax burdens, and called for some contrition from Tory Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) pointed out the anomaly that, under the current system, for just one day in the post of Secretary of State, an MP can receive some £16,000 in severance pay. That is why reform is really needed. He contrasted that with his expert knowledge of what ordinary people can expect in terms of statutory redundancy pay, and the horrible shadow of zero-hours contracts, where people often worry whether they will have enough hours to make ends meet.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) pointed out that MPs such as Joe Ashton were even questioning back in 1991 whether a full 13 weeks’ severance should be payable for just two years. He would certainly be astounded about MPs taking ministerial severance pay after just a few weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) pointed out how nothing got done in the summer of 2022 about matters of immense importance to her constituents, such as cladding. As she reminded us, Labour has full plans, if in government, for a proper ethics and integrity commission to clean up politics.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) made a strong case for reform, illustrating it with the case of the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands). The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) reminded us that there is genuinely a valid case for proper reform of ministerial severance pay, especially with the rapid turnover in ministerial posts, as constituents are paying for the way in which the Tories have trashed the economy.
Now, as a former teacher and examiner, I must say to those Conservative Members who spoke that not adhering to the title of the question is usually rewarded with nought out of 10. I might perhaps give the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) one out of 10, and the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) and the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) maybe a two or a three. As for the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has made it clear what we think about that particular speech. I hope that in his closing remarks the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart)—my opposite number—will address the content of our reforms and not just deliver a tirade against the Labour party.
Anna Firth
I would be very interested to know what score she would give to each of the four Labour leadership candidates who did not give back a single penny of their severance pay after losing the general elections, and after leaving this country with no money whatsoever in 2010?
Dame Nia Griffith
It might surprise the hon. Lady, but I am going to stick to the topic of this debate, which is severance pay.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury, I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Macclesfield (David Rutley) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman), and to the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), who I understand gave back some ministerial severance pay upon taking up new ministerial posts, but it is a great pity that no other Members recognised how totally inappropriate it was to take 13 weeks’ severance pay for a post that they had held for a much shorter time than that, or to keep the full 13 weeks’ pay when they were reappointed in a shorter time than that. Today, they have the opportunity to vote to reform the system that their party has brought into disrepute.
Those in government have a duty to get value for money and to respect the hard-earned taxpayers’ money with which they are entrusted. Let us not forget the financial turmoil caused by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), when she and her team pushed through the Budget in September 2022, ignoring expert advice and leaving people with hundreds of extra pounds to pay on their mortgages—and not just for a couple of months, but for years to come. From this Conservative Government, we have had not just higher mortgages but higher rents, rampant inflation, a real cost of living crisis causing people up and down the country to struggle to make ends meet, and, of course, hollowed-out public services that are scarcely able to meet demand.
When the ministerial severance payments scheme was set up back in 1991, no one would have imagined the absolute pantomime that we have seen over the past couple of years, with nearly 100 Ministers leaving office and taking with them some £993,000—nearly £1 million— of taxpayers’ hard-earned money in ministerial severance pay. Back in 1991, the expectation would have been that Ministers would be in post for a number of years, and that those leaving under the age of 65 would receive a quarter of their final annual salary—13 weeks’ pay—as severance pay.
However, let us fast-forward to the summer of 2022, when MPs were hastily appointed to fill gaps after the frenzied mass resignations from the Johnson Government, supporters of the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk were brought in to serve during her time at No. 10, and supporters of the current Prime Minister, who resigned from the ministerial jobs to put pressure on his predecessors, returned only a few weeks later when he became Prime Minister. We are not saying that the rules were broken, except in the cases of the handful of over-65s who were not entitled to severance pay. Under the existing rules, the rest of those Tory Ministers were legally entitled to three months of severance pay at their final salary level, no matter how long they had been in post, no matter how they came to lose their post and, in most cases, no matter how quickly they returned to the Front Bench afterwards. Those are the glaring loopholes that Labour’s proposed reforms seek to close.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Lady has referred to value for the taxpayer and the contributions of the hard-working people who send us here. Would she support the ongoing freeze on ministerial salaries were Labour to come into power?
Dame Nia Griffith
As I have said, I am going to speak to the topic on the Order Paper, and I am not going to be distracted by any other topic.
If Labour’s proposed reforms had been in place in 2022, that would have saved the taxpayer some 40% of those payouts, or some £377,000. During the Tory turmoil of the past couple of years, some Ministers have received more in severance pay than in actual pay. For example, Ministers who only served for a matter of weeks—perhaps only eight or nine weeks—have been entitled to walk away with 13 weeks’ severance pay. That is clearly totally absurd and unacceptable. Labour is proposing a pro rata system, whereby those Ministers who serve for less than a full year should only receive in severance pay a quarter of what they have actually earned. In other words, if a Minister had been in post for eight months, they would be entitled to two months’ severance pay; if they had been in post for eight weeks, they would be entitled to two weeks’ severance pay.
Likewise, we propose to strengthen the rules concerning Ministers who are reappointed. Under the existing rules, ministerial severance pay is only withheld if the departing Minister takes up another post within three weeks of quitting, which covers a normal reshuffle situation. However, with the revolving door we have seen, some Ministers have returned after more than three weeks but less than 13 weeks and yet kept their full severance pay, which is in accordance with the current rules. That is another loophole that our proposals seek to close: individuals who return to the Front Bench while still benefiting from severance pay would have that pay clawed back. For example, if a Minister were entitled to eight weeks’ severance pay but took up another ministerial post after five weeks, they should clearly forgo the remaining three weeks’ severance pay, as they would of course be receiving their new ministerial salary.
Thirdly, we propose that individuals who leave their jobs while under investigation for gross misconduct or breaches of the ministerial code would not receive any severance pay unless and until they were cleared of those allegations by the relevant authority. We would therefore not be in the situation where the disgraced former Member for Tamworth, who should never have been appointed in the first place, has been able to walk away with full ministerial severance pay.
Likewise, under the current rules, the shameful behaviour of the former Member for Wellingborough was no bar to his taking severance pay. However, as he is over 65, he should never have had that payout in the first place. In fact, nearly £50,000 has been wrongly paid out to former Ministers who were over 65 at the time they left their posts. One would hope that the handful of individuals involved would pay back that severance pay immediately, as I believe the former Member for Mid Bedfordshire, Nadine Dorries, has promised to do. Perhaps in his closing remarks, the Minister could update us on whether Ms Dorries has indeed repaid that money, and also on what progress has been made in clawing back the severance payments that were wrongly made to other Ministers over the age of 65. Make no mistake: ordinary citizens owing money to HMRC or the Department for Work and Pensions would certainly be expected to repay it in a timely fashion. Furthermore, I ask the Minister to address the content of each of our proposals and say whether or not this Government will support them, and if not, why not.
I appeal to Conservative Members to do the decent thing and support Labour’s reforms, and to support bringing forward the necessary legislation in the next fortnight, as set out in our motion on the Order Paper. If they do not support our reforms, we will have to conclude that they are more interested in lining their own pockets than protecting taxpayers’ money. I commend the motion to the House.
Draft Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2023
Nia Griffith Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
It is, as ever, an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley.
It is extraordinary, when there are so many other pressing issues that the Government should be tackling, that they decide to prioritise pushing ahead with this legislation, which will squeeze yet another few pennies from hard-working public servants—people who are already working their socks off in sectors such as the NHS and other frontline services, trying to meet ever greater demand with shrinking resources. They are bearing the burden of the highest taxes since the second world war, and the latest gimmick of giving back tuppence in national insurance contributions does not make up for the at least 10p in additional tax burden that this Government have taken from them. These are public servants whose wages have nowhere near kept up with inflation and who are now facing a real cost of living crisis. Make no mistake, if this cost burden is placed on trade unions, they will inevitably have to pass it on to their members. What is it that the Government have against their own workforce? They will be charging for the toilet paper next.
According to Government documentation, the overall cost to employers is some £1.5 million, which, as noted in the draft impact assessment, equates to a matter of pennies per employee. Once established, as current check-off systems are, costs are minimal—usually arising from just having to add or remove colleagues when they begin or finish their employment—but once employers have to try to disaggregate that cost and raise an invoice for a trade union, the workload is increased. The trade unions, dealing with multiple public sector employers, will have a considerable amount of additional work and additional costs.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The TUC has expressed concern that the regulations could deny some members access to trade union services, which could infringe their rights under article 11 of the European convention on human rights, which protects freedom of assembly and association. Does my hon. Friend agree that these regulations are the latest attempt by the Government to make life more difficult for trade unions and their members?
Dame Nia Griffith
I agree with my hon. Friend. The guidance issued has considerable flaws. It was not even available when the regulations were debated in the other place in December. The guidance is non-statutory. That means that employers do not necessarily have to follow it and can decide for themselves what they consider to be “reasonable costs”. Even within the guidance, there seems to be no mechanism for trade unions to challenge employers’ calculations of reasonable costs. The guidance states baldly:
“If no agreement can be reached and the relevant trade unions do not agree to pay the amount, then the employer may wish to consider taking steps to stop administering Check-off”.
In other words, it is take it or leave it. There is no pathway or mechanism for trade unions to challenge the employers’ calculations of reasonable costs or their decision to terminate check-off. In other words, there is no redress, and the trade unions are put in a position where their only options are to pay what the employer demands or end check-off. What a disgraceful way to treat their loyal workers and their workers’ representatives.
It is as if the Government have completely forgotten, or are choosing to ignore, the immense benefits of having trade union recognition in the workplace. Up and down the country, in both the private and public sector, on a daily basis we see trade unions and employers sorting out a whole range of issues amicably. Time was when Conservative Members recognised the valuable role of trade unions, but now one would almost think that the Government are looking to pick a fight with the trade unions and their own hard-working public servants. The Government’s draft impact assessment suggests there may be
“some loss of goodwill with employees and trade unions”.
There may indeed, and I would not underestimate the value of goodwill in services where so often we find individuals going above and beyond to deliver a good service.
Returning to the guidance, it looks as if the employer has carte blanche to allege additional cost. The example is given of additional cost being justified in the case of what is called “late” notification being given by a trade union of a change in membership fees—whatever “late” may be. This is from a Government who talked about a 12-month period, then a six-month period, and now they want to implement these changes by 9 May, leaving barely three months to have everything worked out. This is from a Government who, in September 2022, with no notice sent the financial institutions into a spin and left people overnight with hundreds of extra pounds to pay on their mortgages or their rent.
On the matter of consultation, according to the draft explanatory memorandum, it sounds as if the consultation was simply to identify the various public bodies that would be covered by this legislation. We read:
“No public consultation was carried out as the principles of this provision were debated extensively in Parliament during the passage of the Trade Union Act in 2016.”
Furthermore, we are told:
“Trade union officials and others gave evidence during the passage of the Act and the Government listened to their comments.”
Make of that what you will, Mr Paisley, but I do not think the Government were doing much listening. To say that now there is no further need to seek advice or comment or to consult more widely is shocking.
There has been no opportunity for either the public or the main parties affected by this legislation—namely, the employees and the trade unions—to feed back on its implementation, because, the Government say, they did this seven years ago. If there had been proper consultation on the implementation, there would have been an opportunity for the trade unions to raise the issues of how an employer would determine costs and what the process for resolving a disagreement over the costs would be, rather than the situation of no redress that the Government are now trying to push through.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Is she not concerned, as I am, that there was not only no public consultation, but no consultation with the devolved Administrations? Given that the regulations will affect public sector workers and public bodies in Scotland, it is extraordinary that there was no consultation with the Scottish Government, who are their employer and who have clear manifesto commitments on industrial relations.
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed I am. As the hon. Member will know, reflecting the will of the people of Wales, the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 disapplied devolved Welsh public sector employers from the provisions of the Trade Union Act 2016. Non-devolved bodies that operate in Wales are subject to the jurisdiction of the 2016 Act, however, so there is certainly an impact on people in Wales. There should have been full and proper consultation with the devolved Governments.
I hope the Minister will address this in his concluding remarks, but will he look again at what happens if the charges that the employer wishes to impose upon a trade union for providing check-off are considered unreasonable by the trade union? Will he look at working with trade unions and employers to agree some form of mechanism to resolve a disagreement?
In the draft impact assessment, the estimates for the scale of the use of check-off range from the 10-year-old TaxPayers’ Alliance figure of 90% of the workforce to the more recent Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy figure of 65% of the workforce. The TaxPayers’ Alliance says that some 22% are already paid for by trade unions, whereas the Local Government Association says that 67% are already paid for. One would think that the Government could, without relying on external organisations, produce an accurate figure for how many employees are served by check-off and whether the costs are recovered from the trade unions. They certainly expect trade unions to have accurate information on whether their members are up to date with their subscriptions when they ballot for industrial action.
The current cost of check-off, which is estimated to be some £1.5 million, pales into insignificance when compared with the latest figures we have of nearly £10 billion wasted on personal protective equipment. Only last Thursday, the Department of Health and Social Care published its annual accounts, and figures showed that some £9.9 billion of the £13.6 billion-worth of PPE that the Department bought between 2020 and 2022 was unusable, and its value is now less than the Government paid for it. Rather than scrabbling to claw back a few pence from their employees, the Government should be making much more effort to chase down those who ripped off the British taxpayer by millions and billions, but they have done nothing to recoup that money. That is why Labour is committed to creating a powerful covid corruption commissioner to help recoup billions of pounds that has been lost to waste, fraud and flawed contracts.
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I was not intending to intervene in this debate, Mr Paisley, mindful of your stricture at the outset, but we appear to have drifted into a wider consideration of the Government’s response to covid. I was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time, and I gently point out that we did instigate a number of controls to try to make sure that wherever wrongdoing relating to the procurement of PPE had been perpetrated against the taxpayer, it would be followed up. That is something that the Department continues to do.
I further observe—I will conclude my remarks in a moment, Mr Paisley—that it was the Labour party that was urging us at the time to disregard ever more processes and to do ever more to procure at pace, to a point when the shadow Chancellor was urging us to go to historical re-enactment companies to procure PPE. I do think that in chiding the Minister and seeking to make a point, the hon. Lady—
The Chair
Order. We are not getting into the settling of scores. I encourage the shadow Minister to stick to the scope of the statutory instrument. Otherwise, we could be here for a very long time.
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed, Mr Paisley.
What I am saying is that the Government should be concentrating their efforts there, not on trying to squeeze a few more pennies from their hard-pressed workforce. The Opposition will oppose this legislation, because it will cause unnecessary bureaucracy, put an additional financial burden on hard-pressed public sector workers, and do nothing to improve good will between the Government and their loyal public servants.
Dame Nia Griffith
I would like the Minister to clarify the issue of the employer setting a rate and the trade union disagreeing with that rate. There is no mechanism for that. The Minister mentioned “the usual”—going to ACAS or whatever—but the fact is that the legislation needs some redress or balance. It is all stacked in favour of the employer, who picks the figure, and the trade union has to take it or leave it. Perhaps the Minister could give us a better answer on that point.
Alex Burghart
I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave a few moments ago. She will know that there are existing, well established processes for dispute resolution between trade unions and public sector employers, and we believe that those will serve in this instance.
Protecting Steel in the UK
Nia Griffith Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
It is both tragic and shocking that we are faced with the potential closure of the last blast furnace in Port Talbot before greener technologies for producing primary steel are developed and operational, and even before the proposed electric arc furnace is up and running. This Conservative UK Government must bear their share of the responsibility for this appalling situation. The Government boast about the grubby little deal they made with Tata in September, spending half a billion pounds to lose 2,800 jobs in Port Talbot and leave the UK as the only country in the G20 without its own steelmaking capacity, at the mercy of world markets with the risk of price hiking, not to mention the national security risk of losing our own primary steelmaking capacity.
Instead, the Government should have been negotiating a proper deal such as the multi-union plan to ensure a just transition. They should have been protecting jobs, keeping the blast furnace going until other production means are fully up and running, and recognising that the electric arc furnace can only be part of the solution. Yes, let us recycle more steel in the UK, but we must recognise that that is not suitable for all our needs. We should also be developing green technologies such as hydrogen and direct reduction of iron to do the primary production of steel, as Labour has proposed, committing £3 billion—not half a billion—to work with the industry to make that just transition a reality.
The tin plate industry is synonymous with Llanelli. It is a central part of our industrial history, and today’s Tata plant in Trostre makes a range of different materials that go on to be used in things like food cans and aerosols. Currently, we receive our steel from Port Talbot, just some 20 miles down the railway track, which makes good economic and environmental sense. Tata tells us that when it closes the blast furnace, we will be importing steel. That imported steel will be made in blast furnaces abroad, so there will be no saving in carbon emissions—quite the opposite. Processes abroad will be much dirtier, and then of course there are the costs and emissions from transporting the steel to Trostre. The challenge will be sourcing an appropriate quality of steel to satisfy Trostre’s needs, and as Trostre makes a number of products and serves a number of different customers, that means steel of the right quality to satisfy all those needs.
We will be very much more vulnerable to logistical difficulties and price fluctuations if we have to import steel. If there is a shortage of supply, foreign producers may well prioritise their home customers.
As for the recycled steel produced in the electric arc furnace, when it eventually comes into production, there is still a lot of work to be done to assess its suitability for the different products that Trostre produces and its acceptability to our customers. It may be that some products can use electric arc furnace steel, but that will depend on the quality of the feedstock that is put in, and there is a strong case for having two smaller electric arc furnaces to provide those different qualities. Then there is the challenge of sourcing the feedstock, and not just sourcing it, but sorting it and trialling it. All this takes time.
In the meantime, we need Tata to keep the blast furnace going. The electric arc furnace should be only part of the solution, the other part being the development of green primary steel-making. I pay tribute to the trade unions, and we now need Tata to work with the trade unions—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Could Members shave time off their speeches, otherwise not everybody will get in?
Oral Answers to Questions
Nia Griffith Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The recent British Library incident is a stark reminder of the terrifying security risk and enormous cost of cyber-attacks, and recent ministerial answers have revealed a shockingly high number of red-rated IT systems across Government Departments. I hear the Secretary of State’s words, but given that the Government’s cyber-security strategy tells us that
“transparent central governance structures will maintain oversight and responsibility for cross-government cyber security risk”,
will he now set out the Government’s timetable for remedying this shocking situation and explain how he will keep the House updated on progress?
Oliver Dowden
We know about this in the first place because of the work undertaken by the Government to fully understand the cyber-security risks facing this country. We are better prepared than most countries around the world. None the less, in respect of the red- rated systems, we are developing remediation plans, all of which will be in place by next year. We are tracking progress and are confident that we will achieve over £1 billion in efficiency savings, in addition to achieving greater resilience by next year.